Nah, let’s just kill him instead.

😐

The RSPCA are an organisation that has badly lost its way.

How the RSPCA can continue to have the power to launch prosecutions at public expense is quite beyond me. Hopefully it will be stripped of this fairly soon.

This is a classic example of providing one side of the story only, the article did not provide the sequence of events from the RSPCA’s perspective nor their full medical diagnosis of the condition of the animal.

I have no doubt at all that there is a lot more to this story than what Mr & Mrs Byrnes claim, indeed a clue lies here :

The family agreed their pet was probably nearing the end of its life, but asked for a little more time to allow the children to say goodbye.

Probably nearing the end of its life because it had long hair ???

And they don’t seem to dispute that he needed to be put down……”but asked for a little more time” which suggests that the poor animal was suffering.

Of course the way the story has been reported in the Telegraph makes it far more interesting for Outraged of Tunbridge Wells.

Very sad, but the RSCA gave a rather different account on the radio, saying the family did have an opportunity to say goodbye before Claude was euthanised and that 2 vets (including the family’s) had agreed the cat was suffering. He wasn’t put down just because he needed a haircut.

launch prosecutions at public expense

Isn’t it members of the public who willingly give their money to the RSPCA ?

This story was covered by R4 this morning. perfect example of the facts getting in the way of a good story.

Isn’t it members of the public who willingly give their money to the RSPCA ?

I believe that the taxpayer covers defence costs of failed prosecutions. The grannies who bequeath money to the charity cover the RSPCA’s own costs.

Seem to be a lot of different versions of this particular story floating around. Wouldn’t necessarily think that the RSPCA version was any more reliable than any other, though.

the torygraph finding any excuse for bashing the RSPCA because of it’s anti hunting stance.

Seem to be a lot of different versions of this particular story floating around.

There only seems to be two versions, do you know of any more ?

.

This story was covered by R4 this morning.

Ah, but can you trust the BBC with its Nanny State, political correctness, EU Human Rights, Health and Safety gone mad, cultural marxist agenda ?

Most of the press seem to have covered it in one way or another. Daily M*** has a long interview with the family which is subtly different as well.

Having worked as a BBC journalist, I know that it is staffed by journalists who are as capable of putting a spin on a story as any other. I’m sure it’s probably more balanced than the Mail story, but as the RSPCA comment seems diametrically opposed to the version put forward by the family, listeners will have to make their own judgement as to which source is the most reliable.

Whatever the RSPCA says has to be taken in the context of the slap on the knuckles it’s just had from the CPS.

Hmmm, I thought the RSPCA did not have any actual powers. Certainly when I contacted them regarding next door’s GSD that lived in a garage 24/7 they said all they could do was ‘have a word’.

Is confused. 😐

They don’t have anymore powers than any other individual.

Their cat was ‘seized’ according to article. Is still confused!

Uniforms and quasi-official job titles can go a long way to convincing folk otherwise, though.

Their cat was ‘seized’ according to article. Is still confused!

And yet another article suggests the family were ‘persuaded’ to allow it to be taken to the vet, so who knows?

THIS

Facts
1.the RSPCA vet said it was suffering it was oozing form its ears and its mouth
2. the cats own vet agreed it was suffering and the pet needed to be put down
3. they were given time to say goodbye to the petafter the request
4. the RSPCA cannot put down any pet/animal a vet makes the decision on that one
5. Long hair does not make you ooze or die even in a cat and it is a total lie to claim this is the basis of the story – see point one about oozing from its orifices.
6. 90% + I forget the actual figure of RSPCA prosecutions are successful. Way more then the CPS/police manage. Hardly over zealous they have evidence.

IMHO, as they prosecute and enforce the hunting legislation , the establishment are out to get them. Best way to do this is to make them look like they go for normal people and kill your healthy pets so we lose respect and we wont give them money.
Please do not fall for this deceit.

May also explain the Cpt’s interest in the matter as well as he likes a hunt iirc.

Friends have got a Maine Coon who will take your face off if you try and groom him 😆 He has great mats of hair that peel off eventually. Nelson is a great and very happy cat 😆

Yes there are obviously 2 sides to every story but I have asked the RSPCA about wildlife in my professional role and they have been utterly dismissive and unhelpful.

As above – the right wing press (countryside alliance etc) don’t like the RSPCA because they support the anti-hunting legislation and in some cases monitor for illegal activity.

This does not mean that the RSPCA is perfect by any stretch, but is does mean that they don’t get a fair hearing in much of the press and negative stories are pushed hard.

Donations are falling aren’t they?

Sorry but I’m still not understanding how the RSPCA became involved.

John Waite(spelling) dd a very interesting programme on radio 4 about the RSPCA. Worth a listen in my view, it could still be on iplayer.

someone will have reported it to them and they will have attended.

Onr of our neighbours used to report us* all the time till the RSPCA got sick of attending – we were on first name terms by then.

* malice nothing at all to report or to be concerned over.

member of the public saw the cat was concern, called the RSPCA who visited and the mother handed the cat over. RSPCA took the cat to a vet who said the cat was suffering and should be put down (the families own vet concurred)

The Barnes’ neighbour grassed them to the the RSPCA.

I listened to the R4 piece this morning the Barnes’ story seems to be that the RSPCA tricked them into having the cat put down and went to great lengths to talk about the fact that it had long hair

The RSPCA version seems to be that the cat was old, thin ( the thinnest cat their vet had ever sen apparently) and had oozing coming from its ears and nose and that 2 vets agreed the best course of action was to have the cat put down.

The RSPCA have a 97% conviction rate.

Facts
1.the RSPCA vet said it was suffering it was oozing form its ears and its mouth
2. the cats own vet agreed it was suffering and the pet needed to be put down
3. they were given time to say goodbye to the petafter the request
4. the RSPCA cannot put down any pet/animal a vet makes the decision on that one
5. Long hair does not make you ooze or die even in a cat and it is a total lie to claim this is the basis of the story – see point one about oozing from its orifices.
6. 90% + I forget the actual figure of RSPCA prosecutions are successful. Way more then the CPS/police manage. Hardly over zealous they have evidence.

Is the source of these facts an RSPCA press statement? Agree there are always two sides, some sectors of the press have an axe to grind, and that this is undoubtedly a messy case, but bitter experience tells me that even statements from ‘reputable’ charities are not immune from bias, error and plain misdirection.

Apparently (according to the family, again) the autopsy commissioned by the RSPCA suggested the animal was in generally good health for its age.

All in all, a bit of a confusing picture.

member of the public saw the cat was concern, called the RSPCA who visited and the mother handed the cat over. RSPCA took the cat to a vet who said the cat was suffering and should be put down (the families own vet concurred)

What a boring story. The Telegraph’s version was much more interesting.

Or Flashheart’s version which is that Claude was “killed” because he needed a haircut.

should have finish it with RSPCA took family to court and CPS said “really 🙄 ”

though do like the story that the RSPCA are secretly a bunch of cat haters going around on a whim and knocking on peoples doors duping people out of their beloved pets then using their evil ways to convince them that their ginger tom would be better off as an entre at the local Korean cafe.

Is the source of these facts an RSPCA press statement?

Interview on Radio 4 TODAY* this morning so not a press release

I doubt you would appear on the BBC flagship news show and lie tbh so you need to decide whether you think the press are BS or the charity are

the autopsy commissioned by the RSPCA suggested the animal was in generally good health for its age.

Eh , what? It was oozing and two vets agreed that it was suffering but apart from dying painfully it was actually in “generally good health”

i will go for the RSPCA so far given that”claim”.

Ohyes I forgot the thinnest cat they had ever seen as well so apart from the ooze and no body weight it was actually fine

* Will be on i player but not sure what the time was.

I’m afraid that my opinion of the RSPCA was formed years ago, long before the hunting thing, when they refused to allow a friend of mine to adopt a rescued springer spaniel on the basis of his job…

…he was a gamekeeper! What better home for a springer?

Unfortunately my exposure to them since then, through animal research, contact with farmers & years of shooting, has done nothing to change my opinion.

I doubt you would appear on the BBC flagship news show and lie

😀

I know, who would do such a thing? Are you that trusting when they have government ministers on?

so you need to decide whether you think the press are BS or the charity are

Or accept that both of them are having a stab at it, in all likelihood.

I know where the RSPCA made their mistake….

ok fair point 😳 and 😀 I walked into that one
I meant a charity not them. TBH what have they to gain by doing that ? The press would be over them with a shitty stick if what they say is untrue. Given they have not even reported it I would take that as evidence the RSPCA account is true and they want to continue to peddle the false agenda.

The RSPCA have a 97% conviction rate.

Wow! 😯

Also wondering this story would have been reported by the telegraph and indeed the beeb (if at all) if it had taken place with an unemplyed owner on a council estate in Bradford rather than a group chief accountant for TFL living in sunny Tring?

Unfortunately my exposure to them since then, through animal research, contact with farmers & years of shooting, has done nothing to change my opinion.

I always wonder if on threads like this whether it would help if all include anything relevantabout ourselves that might influence our opinions. Quite clear and understandable imho to see why ninfan might have a dim view of the rspca.

(JW, 14 years a veggie but cooks and feeds his son and friends meat, cat owner owned by one cat, errr, used to like the Levellers and Carter, mrs used to be a hunt sab back in the day, dishes out medicines tested extensively on animals as part of job.) 😀

I also think that RSPCA are unlikely to say anything that is factually untrue as it would be easy for the press to check and use.

However, the RSPCA don’t necessarily do themselves any favours by prosecuting people who are perhaps misguided rather than wilfully or repeatedly cruel.

As I said the RSPCA is not perfect, but I think get a lot of crap they don’t deserve.

TBH what have they to gain by doing that

I think the term is ‘rebuttal’. That’s why they have a PR department.

If the RSPCA evidence was as cast-iron as they’ve detailed on the Today programme, I’m surprised the CPS chucked it out.

Personally I don’t tend to think of them alongside other charities when they’re exercising this quasi-judicial function.

Given the press have not “rebutted” that says it all IMHO

Junky – I think thats a fair comment over potential bias, but in the past I’ve volunteered with NCDL and a smaller wildlife hospital, where in theory our views couldn’t be more diametrically opposed but we had a shared belief in the welfare of animals. and its probably worth saying that my ex and I met when she was an animal care student, so I’d argue that its not just a knee jerk reaction to anti’s, rather a position I’ve reflected on.

I’m a firm believer in animal welfare rather than animal rights.

For what its worth, I know a lot in the field see the RSPCA as another ‘charity industry’ – rather than being led by results/improving the lot of animals.

Good programme a while back on R4: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b037v4fp

I’m surprised the CPS chucked it out.

Have you got a source for that claim ? You know for a fact that the RSPCA didn’t drop the case on their own volition ? Or that they were even seriously considering prosecution ? And you suggesting that all other failed RSPCA prosecutions met with full CPS approval ?

For someone who has made a point of pointing out that no one can be sure of the full facts of this case you seem remarkably sure about a “fact” which suits your own narrative.

This “story” should be seen for what it is – a politically motivated exercise by a couple of right-wing newspapers with an anti-RSPCA agenda. Which is particularly ironic as they accuse the RSPCA of being politically motivated.

With regards to the cat’s matted hair.
My old cat Oscar had a few matted bits where his armpits were. IT was very difficult and because he was old his skin was a little loose, so it was very hard to brush the matted bits out. Mum tried to carefully trim them but nicked him with the scissors, so it was best left alone and the vet concurred.
Theres more than just matted hair. I cant imagine ANY decent vet would ever consider putting an animal down for this reason alone.

Its the usual selective quoting and oversensationlising stories by the press to fit their own agendas, not actually just give us the facts.