I'm a bit surprised you're taking this woman's side, the RSPCA are going to have to shove lots of Westies on the fire to keep their offices warm tonight.

Ah, like the two nesting Swans that were savaged by a Staff terrier who was let onto them on the Manchester Canal. I had made two worried calls to the RSPCA who told me not their business until there was an injured animal involved. Other walkers had said the samething (eggs nicked from nest and smashed), phone calls to RSPCA- nest actually on path (at the back of a large and rough council estate), dogs seen barking at them etc.. A week later I noticed a story in the Manchester Evening News that one was killed outright and the other had to be put down. Let me try and find the story.

Then there was the large African Grey Parrot I had found escaped in a bush on the way to a night out in Chorlton. Again, sorry we arent interested but maybe the RSPB can help you? Phoned them- no sir thats not our line of work. In the end a nice group of students kept it (when I explained it was probably worth something). We couldnt keep it at home as bingo would have moved heaven and earth to kill it.

Again taking on someone who has a moral right to the money who then wins against you. Sorry, who should I feel sorry for again? Its not the RSPCA.

Aracer, I don't think they "squandered" any money on legal fees. They were being sued, probably by someone who had legal expenses insurance or a no-win-no-fee agreement. What were they supposed to do?

Making a settlement offer doesn't mean you have a weak case. It's a commercial decision, if it's a choice between spending £2.5 million to win £2 million, against a deadbeat who's got no hope of paying it back then it's a pretty sound course of action. You seldom if ever get a legal case that's "watertight" in every sense – what have to do is make sure that you don't throw good money after bad.

Hora, being nice to swans is only prolonging their misery before they get cooked and eaten by the Queen.

The money/farm should go to who the money/farm owners wanted it to go to. You shouldn't be able to overturn wills, the will writer has stated where they want it to go, end of in my book.

That was my first thought on seeing the headline, which on its own didn't cast her in a very favourable light. But according to the BBC version of events at least there's a bit more to it than that so good luck to her.

I don't think they "squandered" any money on legal fees. They were being sued, probably by someone who had legal expenses insurance or a no-win-no-fee agreement. What were they supposed to do?

Squandered might not have been the right word, but you seemed to be suggesting the amount they could offer her was less because of the huge legal bill they were landed with through no fault of their own, poor things. I'm sure they didn't stint on the lawyers, and neither legal expenses insurance nor no-win-no-fee lawyers take on cases they don't think they're going to win (I should know – my legal expenses got cold feet, and only came back in when I paid for a study with my own money, given I was confident I was going to win). The fact they're prepared to lose even more money by appealing because they're "legally obliged" says it all to me.

Making a settlement offer doesn't mean you have a weak case. It's a commercial decision

Of course. Offering her £625k to gain £1.7 million looks like a good commercial decision to me. Not such a good commercial decision to give away £625k if they thought they were going to get the whole lot – or are you suggesting that would have saved them £625k in legal fees?

WTF. Whilst being distracted by mr agreeable- Ive deflated the front tyre, replaced the inner tube with a brand new one then palm/forehead noticed the rear FLAT tyre. Jeesus I need a drink 🙄

It would have been £625k to her, plus her legal costs, plus their legal costs. So I doubt they would have been going home with £1.7 million. I'd guess at half that.

Imagine for a second that you're the director of a charity. How do you guard against a situation where someone leaves you a substantial sum of money, you think "great, we can finally afford to create a special wildfowl rescue divison and shut that oxygen thief Hora up". Then someone comes out of the woodwork, has a slew of lawyers and valuers all wanting a piece of the pie, you have to appoint your own equally high-powered people to fight them, and when the dust has settled you're left with nothing but a humungous legal bill?

Agree, that woman is heinous. She is well out of order- to hell with her principles and her 'slew of Solicitors' (what are you on? She gave up her job to look after them- so where do these slew of Solicitors come from??)

The Director of the Charity. How much does he earn annually? What is the RSPCA's annual income and I wonder what this womans was in the year she took them to court?

I think you'll be surprised. Also, why are their pictures of kittens on various pages of their website?

She was a college lecturer I think. Not on the breadline. I reckon you fancy her, and that's skewing your judgment.

Don't this happen all the time but because it's a charity and millions it's deemed news worthy.

The RSPCA are well able to afford paying someone off if needed – I think they have something like £200m in cash reserves

Something funny happened on Sunday- Salendine Nook Hudds- Westie ran across dual carriageway infront of our car. Jumped out, grabbed him and spent the next 30mins knocking on doors and asking people if they knew of him (tartan collar/no details). Rang various numbers- The Dog Warden/stray folk is council, nothing to do with the RSPCA according to the various options. Anyway, asked another woman and she pointed us to a house. Knocked on door, door opens- 'oh thats where he is, he must have escaped when my daughter came round' (shuts door as soon as she said that)- not even a thank you.

GF said to me as we walked back to the car 'I told you we should have kept him for Bingo' (hearless git!)

It would have been £625k to her, plus her legal costs, plus their legal costs. So I doubt they would have been going home with £1.7 million. I'd guess at half that.

As I keep saying, they'd have gained £1.7 million over what they have now (presumably more given they'd have avoided court costs).

Westie ran across dual carriageway infront of our car

Parrots, Swans & now a Westie

You're a proper Johnny Morris you are 😉

Hora earlier

Hora is the one on the left, I assume?

The one in the arms of the on one the left.

Obliged to Seek is different to chase something down through the courts isnt it?

That is not true Hora.

It was her that did the 'chasing through the courts'. It was her that needed to prove something, not them.
Don't make unfounded allegations.

ernie_lynch, so she chased restorative justice. Semantics. £50m of their annual income comes from bequests- I can now see why they fought this. They are appealling. So its not a case of quashing an Ant but stopping a precedent? ourmanupnorth- we need you..

I can understand the rspca chasing this as far as its gone. But they've lost and should leave it at that. On the balance of things it seems the court has got it right. I hate all this disinheriting your children cr@p, I prefer the French system were you can't and your children have right of inheritence.

Mr Agreeable – Member
She was a college lecturer I think. Not on the breadline. I reckon you fancy her, and that's skewing your judgment.
POSTED 4 HOURS AGO # REPORT-POST

she WAS one until giving it up to look after… Her parents. Hmmm

Remember folks, Coleslaw is a dish best served cold.

taxi25- same system in Italy.
If a parent dies the children get an equal percentage with the remaining parent.
Difficult if the remaining parent will struggle and have to sell a property.
The system seems to work well though as it is known from the outset that when you have children what will happen in the future.

Everyone make a will and make sure you have you're marbles, this includes childless couples. Sorting out stuff intestate is a nightmare.

Of course the state always gets their large slice too.

Times today- At the begining the RSPCA were making plans to sell the house whilst the Daughter frantically sought help to have this stopped. The the Daughter offered a settlement to the RSPCA of 3/4's to go to the RSPCA- later on in the case (probably when the snivelling toads realised that the outlook was looking bleak) they then offered her a settlement of £650k+her costs. Funnily, by that point she didnt settle.

So they are appealling- adding more costs to the legal bill. They obviously realise that people who dispute future bequests might actually have a case to answer.

Love the David and Goliath stories. I think the RSPCA needs to focus its attention on the calls for help it gets rather than on revenue.
Give your money to the PDSA folks instead of the litigous- who have a known track record of zealously chasing select cruelty cases for publicity.