Individual Releases may be
downloaded as Pdfs Here
SHG Press Releases
|
The Self Help Group for Farmers, Pet Owners and Others
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Press Release
ALL SPINDLES FARM “RESCUE” HORSES TO BE RETURNED OR SOLD
The RSPCA is believed to be considering an appeal against Judge Kainth’s ruling. Ends Word Total: 798 Notes to Editors: -
2. The RSPCA spends 44% of its annual income of over £100,000,000 (one hundred million pounds) on its prosecutions department. 3. In the light of Judge Kainth’s findings, the RSPCA, which claims to apply the Code for Crown Prosecutors, will have to satisfy Sally Case, Head of Prosecutions, that it has considered whether each of the allegations stands “a reasonable prospect of success” and is “in the public interest”. 4. The RSPCA is a private body so there is no mechanism to challenge the decision which Ms Case reaches. 5. Mr. Gray’s animals had been placed with organisations such as the International League for the Protection of Horses (ILPH) and Redwings, with whom the RSPCA has a special relationship and with whom it worked on the raids which it conducted against Mr Gray. 6. Many of Mr Gray’s animals were seized on advice from “independent expert” Nic de Brauwere, who is Head of Welfare at Redwings. Mr de Brauwere claims to have been on hundreds of “unannounced visits” with the RSPCA. He was severely criticised by District Judge Philip Browning, when the RSPCA’s private prosecution against Gina and Martin Griffin was thrown out in Norwich. 7. Launching the RSPCA’s usual attack on judges who have found against them, Kirsty Hampton, who was responsible for the raids, said:
Useful Contacts: Jacqui Fulton at Blythe Liggins: 01926 831 231 or jf@blytheliggins.co.uk
References: Rescued ponies ordered to be returned to family Judge orders immediate return of donkeys and ponies Only eight horses seized by RSPCA were at risk Five accused over cruelty Spindles Farm horses have not been returned says RSPCA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SHG Press Release Animal Welfare Act 2006 gives NO new powers to the RSPCA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE The Self Help Group for Farmers Pet Owners and Others Experiencing Difficulties with the RSPCA (the SHG) is receiving calls from worried animal owners who believe that the RSPCA have been given new powers by the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (AWA) and who are realising that there are no safeguards written into the AWA that will protect people’s civil and legal rights. “This means that the RSPCA currently have NO right of entry, NO right to demand answers and NO right to seize your animals.” Anne Kasica of the SHG said “There are supposed to be consultations before secondary legislation and the Codes of Practice which will detail how an animal is supposed to be kept are implemented, but a spokesman for Mr. Bradshaw talking about the consultation on circus animals has stated that "The Bill is intended to ban all species not native to Britain." and that the consultation was needed before the ban becomes law!” “Every animal owner in the country should take heed of these weasel words. It seems that the consultations are simply exercises to fulfil the requirements of the Act and that they are seen by Mr. Bradshaw and his Department as legal hoops to jump through before introducing the ban.” “Animal owners should be telling the government, the Welsh Assembly and their local authority that they do not want the RSPCA to be appointed as “inspectors” under the AWA and that it is the duty of the authorities to appoint professionals with no political axe to grind..” Notes to Editors: -Please note that the petition to the Prime Minister for a public Inquiry into the policies and running of the RSPCA now has over 1800 signatures and can be seen and signed at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/rspcainquiry/ ReferencesBLOW FOR ANNE THE ELEPHANT Notes from FoBAS: The Federation of British Animal Sanctuaries Act Helps Keep Pets Safer (from Harrow Times) For further comment please contact Anne Kasica on 01559 371031 or Ernest Vine on 01559 370566. Mobile 07719 367148. e-mail: shg@the-shg.org The SHG was officially formed in June 1990 and has been helping people to defend themselves and their animals from the RSPCA ever since. The national help line number is 08700 72 66 89 A copy of this and previous press releases from The SHG are online at Background information on the Self Help Group for Farmers Pet Owners and Other Experiencing Difficulties with the RSPCA can be found at Details of further criticisms of the RSPCA can be found at the RSPCA-Animadversion website: ENDS |
SHG Press Release RSPCA's increase in abandoned animals the inevitable result of FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE As the RSPCA flexes its muscles with the introduction of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, The Self Help Group for Farmers, Pet Owners and Others experiencing difficulties with the RSPCA (The SHG) asks what the AWA has actually achieved. The RSPCA are claiming a massive increase in the numbers of animals handed in and abandoned. As predicted in paragraph three of the Memorandum submitted by the SHG to the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
According to Anne Kasica of the SHG “Even if we take out the huge numbers of people who have been terrified into giving up staffordshire bull terriers and staffie crosses who were loving family pets as a result of yet another RSPCA campaign on dangerous dogs, the RSPCA are still admitting that our predictions are correct.” Background information on the Self Help Group for Farmers Pet Owners and Other Experiencing Difficulties with the RSPCA can be found at Notes to Editors: -ReferencesParagraph 3 House of Commons - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs - Minutes of Evidence Dramatic rise in unwanted pets | Metro.co.uk SHG Press Release - RSPCA Cruelty figures at a ten year low For further comment please contact Anne Kasica on 01559 371031 or Ernest Vine on 01559 370566. The SHG was officially formed in June 1990 and has been helping people to defend themselves and their animals from the RSPCA ever since. A copy of this and previous press releases from The SHG are online at ENDS |
SHG Press Release
|
SHG Press Release The Fat Dog Case All they achieved was to add the hunger pangs of starvation to the pain of arthritis and hip dysplasia and to separate Rusty from those he loved. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE On the eve of Rusty's return to the Bentons The Self Help Group for Farmers, Pet Owners and Others experiencing difficulties with the RSPCA (The SHG) is breaking its silence on this matter in order to correct the misunderstandings relating to the merits of bringing this prosecution in the light of the statement by Ben Bradshaw, during the final debate before the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (AWA) became law, that "It is not the Government's intention to punish the owners of fat cats, although overfeeding an animal can be problematic" Said Ernest Vine of the SHG: "We hope that once the AWA is in force the RSPCA will comply with the intentions of Parliament and will never again bring a case involving an overweight animal before the courts." "Rusty was suffering in the care of the Bentons. Rusty has been suffering in the care of the RSPCA. And Rusty will continue to suffer until the day he dies, irrespective of whose care he is in." "Most of Rusty's weight gain occurred following an operation to neuter him. Neutered or spayed dogs need 30% less food than unaltered dogs and it is this factor that is contributing to so much obesity in the canine world." "In Rusty's case this reduction in food intake has to be added to the reduction necessary to account for his inability to exercise because of the pain from his hip dysplasia and severe arthritis and his need to lose weight. The only means by which he can lose weight is for his dietary intake to be restricted." According to Duncan Davidson, the defence vet, Rusty had unusually large amounts of grass in his faeces and was desperate to eat grass when outside. Rusty's need to eat grass can be explained by Mr. Davidson's estimation that Rusty needs a 75% reduction of the normal labrador's dietary intake. Anne Kasica said "So the RSPCA have replaced the suffering of being overweight with the suffering of feeling continually starved and desperate to eat. No-one can cure Rusty's arthritis which is the cause of his obesity. Indeed, if it were so easy to diet Jackie Ballard, the Director General of the RSPCA would have gone through life with a slender waif like build." "Which form of suffering is worse? Rusty cannot walk and exercise even when slimmed down because of his arthritis. And in his twilight years the one pleasure that every Labrador is renowned for enjoying, eating, has been denied him as a result of this ill-judged political prosecution." "The Bentons were found not guilty of causing unnecessary suffering by failing to adequately treat Rusty's ear condition because with all of the immense resources available to them, the RSPCA had also failed to cure it. Just as they have failed to cure his eye problems and arthritis." Indeed, Rusty had enjoyed treatment paid for by pet insurance for most of his life. But his pet insurance ended when he reached the cut off age. And the Benton's vets, Pet Doctors, refused to treat Rusty unless they were paid cash up front. Pet Doctors also refused to let the Bentons pay in instalments. Said Anne Kasica: "The massive costs of the RSPCA's treatment regime for Rusty were beyond the purse of any ordinary pet owner. The RSPCA could have offered to help with the cost of veterinary treatment for Rusty but instead chose to spend many thousands of pounds in prosecuting his owners. They put Rusty through further misery by separating him from the people he loved and taking him from the only home he knew." "This case highlights the reasons why people are afraid to approach the RSPCA for help. We have been campaigning for some time for an animal NHS for the animals of pensioners because just when insurance is most needed, when an animal becomes elderly and its owners income drops, is the time insurance is no longer available. Conclusion The SHG urges government to introduce a National Animal Health Service which we believe would do more to reduce animal suffering than all of the animal welfare legislation that has been passed while this government has been in power. The SHG urges the government to take steps to control RSPCA prosecutions by requiring them to be scrutinised by the police and CPS before they are allowed to proceed, and we ask the CPS to actively quality control all RSPCA prosecutions by taking over and dropping those which are clearly political or which no responsible prosecutor would bring. Notes to Editors: - References House of Commons Hansard Debates for 06 Nov 2006 (pt 0001) The SHG Response to the EIG consultation Pudgy pooch lumbers home - The ChronicleHerald.ca Brothers found guilty over 'grossly' obese dog Defence Barrister: Ann Marie Gregory of St. Pauls Chambers Leeds For further comment please contact Anne Kasica on 01559 371031 or Ernest Vine on 01559 370566. Mobile 07719 367148. e-mail: shg@the-shg.org The SHG was officially formed in June 1990 and has been helping people to defend themselves and their animals from the RSPCA ever since. The national help line number is 08700 72 66 89 A copy of this and previous press releases from The SHG are online at Background information on the Self Help Group for Farmers Pet Owners and Other Experiencing Difficulties with the RSPCA can be found at http://www.the-shg.org Details of further criticisms of the RSPCA can be found at the RSPCA-Animadversion website: http://cheetah.webtribe.net/~animadversion ENDS |
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE -
The third prosecution (another 60 summonses) of pet-shop owner Simon Gilbert by the London Borough of Newham has just been dismissed at Stratford Magistrates Court and the Legal Department have just confirmed that all its proposed appeals will not be pursued. Simon Gilbert says as follows:
Attached, you will find: For further information, contact animal welfare specialist Nigel Weller at: Nigel Weller & Co Solicitors, 15 Market St, Lewes, East Sussex, BN7 2NB 01273 487123 Wednesday, 10 January, 2007 |
SHG Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Following yet another failed animal welfare prosecution The Self Help Group for Farmers, Pet Owners and Others experiencing difficulties with the RSPCA (The SHG) again calls for every animal welfare prosecution to be scrutinised by the CPS. Anne Kasica said: “This case has been an outrageous waste of public resources. It has been a political prosecution which has been the inevitable result of the RSPCA’s political activities and Mr. Gilbert and his family have suffered dreadfully as a result.“ “We call on the government to ensure that the new Animal Welfare Act is amended to ensure that this never happens again, and that strict training and continued review of all personnel responsible for enforcing it is imposed.” The SHG believes that there should be absolutely no RSPCA involvement in local authority prosecutions and that when the new Inspectors are appointed under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 steps should be taken to ensure that they are not infiltrated by those with a political axe to grind. Said Ernest Vine of the SHG: “It is imperative that the use of Expert Witnesses in prosecutions of any sort is immediately reviewed by the government. The system is failing to provide professional, objective and fair assessments of prosecution evidence and resulting in terrible injustices along with the utter waste of public funds and court and police time. This must never happen again. The animal owning public deserves to be protected from the activities of extremists who do not believe in pet shops, or in some cases even the owning of pets.” ConclusionThe SHG again calls for a full Public Inquiry into the RSPCA and its activities. The SHG asks the CPS to protect the public and call in every Animal Welfare Prosecution for a full and independent review before permitting the prosecution to go ahead. The SHG demands a full review of the use of Expert Witnesses by prosecutors. Notes to Editors: -References NEWHAM DOUBLE BLUNDER IN PET SHOP FIASCO RSPCA letter to every local authority stating their opposition to the sale of animals in pet shops Animal Rights & the Future of the Pet Industry For further comment please contact Anne Kasica on 01559 371031 or Ernest Vine on 01559 370566. Mobile 07719 367148. e-mail: shg@the-shg.org The SHG was officially formed in June 1990 and has been helping people to defend themselves and their animals from the RSPCA ever since. The national help line number is 08700 72 66 89 A copy of this and previous press releases from The SHG are online at Background information on the Self Help Group for Farmers Pet Owners and Other Experiencing Difficulties with the RSPCA can be found at http://www.the-shg.org Details of further criticisms of the RSPCA can be found at the RSPCA-Animadversion website: http://cheetah.webtribe.net/~animadversion ENDS |
SHG
Press Release
As the dust settles in the wake
of the failed RSPCA attempt to prosecute primate owner Jason Allen The
Self Help Group for Farmers, Pet Owners and Others experiencing difficulties
with the RSPCA (The SHG) again calls for a full Public Enquiry into
the RSPCA and its activities. The SHG again
calls for a full Public Inquiry into the RSPCA and its activities.
|
SHG Press Release RSPCA Inspectors empowered to hand out fixed penalty notices of £80 or £100 will decimate pet keeping FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 15th October 2006 The Self Help Group for Farmers, Pet Owners and Others experiencing difficulties with the RSPCA (The SHG) is appalled at the possibility of RSPCA Inspectors being empowered under clause 15 of the Police and Justice Bill to hand out fixed-penalty notices of £80 or £100. This news comes as at least one local authority (Luton) is considering cutting its dog warden service due to lack of funding and as the Animal Welfare Bill (AWB) is about to go to Report stage. The SHG believes that despite Government claims, it is clear that there will be no new money for local authorities under the AWB and that the RSPCA will become the default Inspectors. Animal keepers will be utterly powerless to protect their pets when faced with an Inspector who will have, in addition to sweeping powers granted to him under the new AWB, the right to issue an on the spot fine to anyone whose behaviour he thinks is threatening or anti-social. Any animal keeper who dares to get upset if an RSPCA inspector criticises the care he has provided for his animal, or because the inspector intends to remove his animal is going to be at risk of such a penalty. Said Anne Kasica of the SHG: “With Legal Aid being cut to the bone it is going to be impossible for people to go to court to clear their names. It will be cheaper for the innocent to simply pay the fine.” “We will see people giving up keeping pets in their droves as they realise just what sweeping powers to control animal keeping have been granted to unaccountable charity workers.” Notes to Editors: -ReferencesCouncil workers may get right to impose on-the-spot fines - Sunday Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2404676,00.html Luton-on-Sunday: Dog warden service may see cash cuts bite For further comment please contact Anne Kasica on 01559 371031 or Ernest Vine on 01559 370566. Mobile 07719 367148. e-mail: shg@the-shg.org The SHG was officially formed in June 1990 and has been helping people to defend themselves and their animals from the RSPCA ever since. The national help line number is 08700 72 66 89 Background information on the Self Help Group for Farmers Pet Owners and Other Experiencing Difficulties with the RSPCA can be found at http://www.the-shg.org Details of further criticisms of the RSPCA can be found at the RSPCA-Animadversion website:
ENDS |
| Subject: | SHG Press Release - RSPCA Cruelty figures at a ten year low |
| Date: | Tue, 03 Oct 2006 12:53:00 +0100 |
| From: | The Shg Org <shg@the-shg.org> |
| Reply-To: | shg@the-shg.org |
| To: | <undisclosed recipients> |
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE |
|
Commentary RSPCA Data 1995 – 2005 (All data sourced from RSPCA Annual Reviews and Press Releases) The RSPCA claims that cruelty figures have risen. Their own figures for the past ten years show that cruelty convictions are actually lower now than in 1995. (Sheet 2). It is clear that the figures released by the RSPCA have, at best, been misunderstood. An analysis of the figures for 2000 compared with 2005 shows that
Also sourced
from the RSPCA’s own figures, any living animal coming into their care
Prosecution figures are unavailable for 2004 and 2005. The RSPCA have not released them. They have changed the way they report them. Highlighted figures in red were obtained from a July RSPCA press release and were labelled ‘cases reported’. Anyone who has seen the media reviews would believe that cruelty figures have increased by massive percentages, yet the RSPCA’s own data shows that over a decade the figures peaked around the turn of the century and then steadily declined. A comparison of the figures for the past ten years can be found in the attached Excel Spreadsheet N.B. Two different sets of figures? The RSPCA annual report details resources expended on prosecutions as £5.5 million but in the July Information Cruelty Statistics the costs are just over £3 million. Which set of figures is correct? Conclusion“The SHG again calls for a full Public Inquiry into the RSPCA and its activities.” “The SHG believes there should be a stay on the progress of the AWB until the statistics provided by the RSPCA in support of it have been properly and independently audited,” Notes to Editors: -For further comment please contact Anne Kasica on 01559 371031 or Ernest Vine on 01559 370566. Mobile 07719 367148. e-mail: shg@the-shg.org The SHG was officially formed in June 1990 and has been helping people to defend themselves and their animals from the RSPCA ever since. The national helpline number is 08700 72 66 89 Background information on the Self Help Group for Farmers Pet Owners and Other Experiencing Difficulties with the RSPCA can be found at http://www.the-shg.org Details
of further criticisms of the RSPCA can be found at the RSPCA-Animadversion
website: http://cheetah.webtribe.net/~animadversion
ENDS |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Financial data | 1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
| Income x 1000 | 37,311, | 43,435, | 53,971, | 50,777, | 57,492, | 66,612, | 69,933, | 79,641, | 83,875, | 90,157, | 99,959, |
| Expenditure x 1000 | 40,169 | 40,787, | 48,017, | 54,325, | 63,304, | 71,012, | 70,449, | 69,083, | 69,297, | 68,810, | 73,150, |
| Costs of generating funds x 1000 | - | - | - | - | - | 7,341, | 7,879, | 11,156, | 9,983, | 12,633, | 13,821, |
| Balance x 1000 | 109,552, | 119,037 | 161,305, | 163302, | 172,756, | 162,474 | 144,797, | 133,238 | 145,306, | 139,603, | 163,984, |
| Workload | |||||||||||
| Phone calls received | 1,223,828 | 1,303,481 | 1,397,516 | 1,558,131 | 1,572,344 | 1,592,673 | 1,509,317 | 1,443,156 | 1279953 | 1,151,088 | 1,169,057 |
| Complaints investigated | 110,175 | 101,751 | 133,664 | 124,374 | 132,021 | 126,746 | 123,156 | 114,004 | 105,932 | 109,985 | 110,841 |
| Rescues | 6,265 | 6,982 | 8,255 | 8,680 | 9,927 | 13,112 | 11,947 | 11,311 | 11,806 | 12,560 | 13,907 |
| Inspections | 20,294 | 18,293 | 21,531 | 16,941 | 15,708 | 14,452 | 8,264 | 2,557 | 3,166 | 1,044 | 744 |
| Animal collections | - | 116,093 | 169,846 | 143,659 | 156,721 | 180,168 | 184,706 | 183,609 | 182,570 | 157,482 | 138,563 |
| Cruelty statistics | |||||||||||
| Prosecutions | 812 | 790 | 872 | 853 | 701 | 824 | 736 | 699 | 708 | 1,507 | 1,604 |
| Convictions | 2,201 | 2,282 | 2,650 | 3,114 | 2,715 | 2,473 | 2,449 | 2,000 | 1,829 | 1,665 | 2,071 |
| Defendants | 981 | 971 | 1,195 | 1,125 | 971 | 1,059 | 949 | 910 | 928 | 868 | 1,013 |
| Penalties for cruelty | |||||||||||
| Prison sentences | 23 | 55 | 57 | 73 | 60 | 57 | 61 | 64 | 55 | 44 | 31 |
| Banning orders | 650 | 681 | 795 | 819 | 723 | 787 | 734 | 880 | 698 | 695 | 749 |
| Defendants who could have been banned but were not | 225 | 222 | 261 | 249 | 170 | 227 | 176 | 187 | 168 | 223 | 162 |
| Homes found, Treatments & Destructions | |||||||||||
| Homes Found | - | 79,492 | 88,216 | 99,619 | - | 96,403 | 90,689 | 82,936 | 69,956 | 69,787 | 69,900 |
| Treatments | - | 264,999 | 272,499 | 286,540 | - | 280,880 | 247,310 | 261,988 | 263,155 | 238,265, | 247,940, |
| Humane Destructions | - | 3,999 | 2,871 | 3,227 | - | 1,609 | 4,244 | 3,703 | 2,857 | 3,092 | 2,988 |
| Destructions for Medical Reasons | - | 63,216 | 84,866 | 87,725 | - | 88,938 | 80,738 | 68,950 | 61,752 | 61,789 | 58,420 |
| Total Destructions | - | - | |||||||||
24th January 2009 (Second)
24th January 2009 (First)
25th April 2007
19th April 2007
