Guest stevo Posted November 16, 2016 Report Share Posted November 16, 2016 About time http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37987213 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted November 16, 2016 Report Share Posted November 16, 2016 I agree, the RSPB have abused the authority to prosecute by persuing a political agenda for years! it should not be allowed to investigate AND prosecute in alleged criminal cases........it should still investigate but should have to submit a report to the DPP to decide whether (or not) to prosecute, and the DPP should progress any prosecution! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
figgy Posted November 16, 2016 Report Share Posted November 16, 2016 How can a charity be allowed prosecution powers, they should be stripped of there charitable status along with prosecution power. They have stepped outside the guidelines for both many times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man Posted November 16, 2016 Report Share Posted November 16, 2016 Long overdue IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted November 16, 2016 Report Share Posted November 16, 2016 What did the RSPCA guy on the BBC claim?........was it 2% (£4,000,000) of their "income" spent on prosecutions? Is their total income really £200,000,000? (two hundred million pounds per year!)...**** me! Do they really need charitable status? Wonder what the RSPB rake in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man Posted November 16, 2016 Report Share Posted November 16, 2016 Huge income from stupid old s*d's who believe all the hype and blurb spouted about how they really, really care about animal welfare? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adge Cutler Posted November 16, 2016 Report Share Posted November 16, 2016 (edited) What did the RSPCA guy on the BBC claim?........was it 2% (£4,000,000) of their "income" spent on prosecutions? Is their total income really £200,000,000? (two hundred million pounds per year!)...**** me! Do they really need charitable status? Wonder what the RSPB rake in? About 137m 47 m of it from subscriptions Of a weighting of £40 average per member or about 50 % less than the BASC I think it should be left as it is personally, the success rate of prosecutions for animal cruelty offences is more than that of the CPS. All that will happen ( in my opinion ) is many more acts of cruelty and barbarism to animals will go unpunished. If however Government resolves to remove that right then so be it ....That's democracy. Similarly if 7+ million people want to donate to the RSPCA and RSPB each year.... such is there right...im sure most of them know what the money is used for. Edited November 16, 2016 by Adge Cutler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted November 16, 2016 Report Share Posted November 16, 2016 "All that will happen ( in my opinion ) is many more acts of cruelty and barbarism to animals will go unpunished." I'm afraid that sadly that would turn out to be the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
figgy Posted November 16, 2016 Report Share Posted November 16, 2016 It would be fine for a court to decide what is and is not cruel, not the RSPCA and there cronies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adge Cutler Posted November 16, 2016 Report Share Posted November 16, 2016 It would be fine for a court to decide what is and is not cruel, not the RSPCA and there cronies. Quite. 100 % spot on... That's exactly what they do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stevo Posted November 16, 2016 Report Share Posted November 16, 2016 One organisation CAN NOT be allowed to be judge. Jury. And executioner. Talk about giving them the power to justify there actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adge Cutler Posted November 16, 2016 Report Share Posted November 16, 2016 One organisation CAN NOT be allowed to be judge. Jury. And executioner. Talk about giving them the power to justify there actions. Couldn't agree more...thankfully the RSPCA are none of these . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stevo Posted November 16, 2016 Report Share Posted November 16, 2016 (edited) Couldn't agree more...thankfully the RSPCA are none of these . How do you work that out or have I missed the sarcasium haha Edited November 16, 2016 by stevo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adge Cutler Posted November 16, 2016 Report Share Posted November 16, 2016 How do you work that out They just act in the roll of the CPS bringing prosecution cases to court. ( or so I believe) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fortune Posted November 16, 2016 Report Share Posted November 16, 2016 judge. Jury. And executioner. . The rspca for all of their faults is none of the above. All they do is take the cases to court and give evidence. it is for the above to conduct the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted November 16, 2016 Report Share Posted November 16, 2016 The rspca for all of their faults is none of the above. All they do is take the cases to court and give evidence. it is for the above to conduct the case. I think you'll find the RSPCA act as the police, decide whether to prosecute and then act as the prosecution! other enforcement bodies (including the police) investigate, then the CPS are responsible for prosecuting (or deciding whether to!) the case! There appears to be a conflict of interests in the way the RSPCA act! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iano Posted November 16, 2016 Report Share Posted November 16, 2016 I think you'll find the RSPCA act as the police, decide whether to prosecute and then act as the prosecution! other enforcement bodies (including the police) investigate, then the CPS are responsible for prosecuting (or deciding whether to!) the case! There appears to be a conflict of interests in the way the RSPCA act! The RSPCA will investigate alleged incidents of animal cruelty and they have a right to decide if the matter should be brought before the courts. Normally, there is a separation in that one body investigates (the police), the CPS then review and decide if it goes to court and the CPS 'runs' the case in court. Here the RSCPA investigate, decide and 'run' the case in that they are the ones providing the evidence and hiring the barrister for the prosecution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted November 16, 2016 Report Share Posted November 16, 2016 The RSPCA will investigate alleged incidents of animal cruelty and they have a right to decide if the matter should be brought before the courts. Normally, there is a separation in that one body investigates (the police), the CPS then review and decide if it goes to court and the CPS 'runs' the case in court. Here the RSCPA investigate, decide and 'run' the case in that they are the ones providing the evidence and hiring the barrister for the prosecution. Apologies, Isn't that what I said? 'Run'..........doesn't that mean prosecute? The RSPCA investigate, decide whether to prosecute, if they decide to prosecute then they do so with their own prosecution team......ergo the RSPCA act as if they are the CPS on their own investigations..........that, I submit m'lud, is unacceptable as it is clearly a conflict of interests? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adge Cutler Posted November 16, 2016 Report Share Posted November 16, 2016 Apologies, Isn't that what I said? 'Run'..........doesn't that mean prosecute? The RSPCA investigate, decide whether to prosecute, if they decide to prosecute then they do so with their own prosecution team......ergo the RSPCA act as if they are the CPS on their own investigations..........that, I submit m'lud, is unacceptable as it is clearly a conflict of interests? Is it ? and Does it matter. ? Isn't the welfare of the Animal paramount here, and bringing to justice those that abuse them with the most abject cruelty you cant even begin to imagine. If the success rate for their funded prosecutions is over 90 % then obviously their conflict of interest is obviously not relevant. I'm quite happy for them to carry on using my contributions for bringing these people to justice and I would imagine many other contributors are too. If it was left to the police and the CPS many cases would not even get into the public eye let alone as far as the bar. ( the legal bar that is ) Obviously you and many other don't contribute to the RSPCA and that is your right and prerogative so why should you feel obliged to be critical of their role in bringing criminals to justice through the proper legal process. ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalahari Posted November 16, 2016 Report Share Posted November 16, 2016 Adge if you can't see the importance of the separation of powers you should look into the situation more carefully. The point of separating them is to put a check in so there is less opportunity to "fit people up" many of the RSPCA's failed prosecutions are because they have deliberately withheld evidence that is contrary to their view. They should have lost the powers long ago. David. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted November 16, 2016 Report Share Posted November 16, 2016 (edited) Anybody can bring a private prosecution, that's a legal right. The problem is they have assumed quasi police powers without the accountability. A one to one chat on your doorstep can later be described as an interview without the benefit of it being properly recorded or copies of 'statements' being shared with the defence. In terms of their procedures they are about where the police were in the 60s. Yet when they stand up in court to give evidence in uniform they are very rarely given the sort of hard time most police officers experience regularly. Statements like "the dog was starving" generally go unchallenged yet if a copper stood up and said the same he/she would expect to be asked to justify it. They have been too untouchable for far too long Edited November 16, 2016 by Vince Green Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adge Cutler Posted November 16, 2016 Report Share Posted November 16, 2016 Adge if you can't see the importance of the separation of powers you should look into the situation more carefully. The point of separating them is to put a check in so there is less opportunity to "fit people up" many of the RSPCA's failed prosecutions are because they have deliberately withheld evidence that is contrary to their view. They should have lost the powers long ago. David. David With respect there have been very few failed prosecutions. Failed prosecutions at court are less 0.8% . If this were the other way around I would be very concerned that people were being, as you put it being " fitted up " by the RSPCA. and I suspect so would our Judicial system. The RSPCA employ independent solicitors and barristers to take cases to court so the deliberate withholding evidence is extremely unlikely. I don't believe for one minute the RSPCA didn't take a case to court unless it had every reason to believe it would be successful and the rate of convictions just confirms this in my opinion. If I ever thought the RSPCA's mandate was just to fit people up I wouldn't support them. ( or worked for them in the past ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted November 16, 2016 Report Share Posted November 16, 2016 Is it ? and Does it matter. ? Isn't the welfare of the Animal paramount here, and bringing to justice those that abuse them with the most abject cruelty you cant even begin to imagine. If the success rate for their funded prosecutions is over 90 % then obviously their conflict of interest is obviously not relevant. I'm quite happy for them to carry on using my contributions for bringing these people to justice and I would imagine many other contributors are too. If it was left to the police and the CPS many cases would not even get into the public eye let alone as far as the bar. ( the legal bar that is ) Obviously you and many other don't contribute to the RSPCA and that is your right and prerogative so why should you feel obliged to be critical of their role in bringing criminals to justice through the proper legal process. ? My main beef is the politicisation of the RSPCA........ they are a charity who's charitable status exists on the basis of preventing cruelty to animals, not to use well intentioned donors money to bring to court politically motivated prosecutions. I also don't consider the RSPCA acting as police and prosecutor in bringing alleged criminals to justice is a fair, proper and guaranteed unbiased legal process......that's one reason why the CPS exists.......to ensure checks and balances are in place and ensure the legal process is fair, proper and unbiased. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adge Cutler Posted November 16, 2016 Report Share Posted November 16, 2016 Anybody can bring a private prosecution, that's a legal right. The problem is they have assumed quasi police powers without the accountability. A one to one chat on your doorstep can later be described as an interview without the benefit of it being properly recorded or copies of 'statements' being shared with the defence. In terms of their procedures they are about where the police were in the 60s. Yet when they stand up in court to give evidence in uniform they are very rarely given the sort of hard time most police officers experience regularly. Statements like "the dog was starving" generally go unchallenged yet if a copper stood up and said the same he/she would expect to be asked to justify it. They have been too untouchable for far too long I'm sorry but that's not the case respectfully.. their solicitors cannot present any evidence in court that has not been properly recorded or corroborated..that's why they have such a strong legal team and such a high percentage of successful prosecutions.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adge Cutler Posted November 16, 2016 Report Share Posted November 16, 2016 My main beef is the politicisation of the RSPCA........ they are a charity who's charitable status exists on the basis of preventing cruelty to animals, not to use well intentioned donors money to bring to court politically motivated prosecutions. I also don't consider the RSPCA acting as police and prosecutor in bringing alleged criminals to justice is a fair, proper and guaranteed unbiased legal process......that's one reason why the CPS exists.......to ensure checks and balances are in place and ensure the legal process is fair, proper and unbiased. Fair enough... I'm not concerned with the Politics of it however just justice for the animals and proper accountability for the people who abuse them. 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.