RSPCA Exposed.

Air_Cooled_75

They don't have a never ending pot of money to care for animals that the original owners can't be bothered with anymore / have not bothered to get neutered etc. etc.

Sadly, until people accept their responsibilities as owners properly there will always be animals in shelters and sadly some of them will be pts.

I don't believe the Daily Fail anyway, it's full of !!!!!.

Air_Cooled_75

Ah, just read the article in full and it seems it's crux is pompous twits and hunting typical Daily Fail.

encoderX

dandelionclock30 wrote: »

.

No they have got millions in the bank which the animals see nothing of instead they are killed. So you think its o.k for an organization which has a very carefully crafted public image to be the antithesis of what it stands for?
Perhaps you need to reflect on your ignorance and what you are saying.

The problem with tabloids, and other news services is they embellish facts and scaremonger. The sad outcome of this is, normally intelligent people soak up this drivel, and cause a furore, arguments etc. Surely, if one was concerned about things like this, they’d do THEIR OWN research before posting half baked ‘speculation’

dandelionclock30

encoderX wrote: »

The problem with tabloids, and other news services is they embellish facts and scaremonger. The sad outcome of this is, normally intelligent people soak up this drivel, and cause a furore, arguments etc. Surely, if one was concerned about things like this, they’d do THEIR OWN research before posting half baked ‘speculation’

.

Own research? there has been plenty written about this over the years.What own research, like posing as a dog or cat or something:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:.

olias

OP, read post #10

Olias

pleasedelete

I think it's a scandal that they stop animals being adopted. We wanted a cat. My son was 4.5 and the RSPCA refused as they wouldn't let pets go to homes with children under 5. We had previously had cats. We went to he blue cross. We adopted 2 instantly- we took them home the next day. One died earlier this year (11 years later) at about 18 and the other is still going strong (about 16 now).

We see the concern about the adoption of children bring held up by bureaucracy but is it any better for pets?

CookieMonsta

dandelionclock30 wrote: »

.

No they have got millions in the bank which the animals see nothing of instead they are killed. So you think its o.k for an organization which has a very carefully crafted public image to be the antithesis of what it stands for?
Perhaps you need to reflect on your ignorance and what you are saying.

I am not ignorant of the situation. I've had to put down beloved family pets before. I've been to many RSPCA facilities and see how they're struggling, even with 18 million in the bank.

Money cannot just magic more foster carers and forever homes for needy animals. That is what is needed more than donations, space, food or wages etc.

I think you need to be more realistic about the situation. I take it you're doing your bit and have several rescue dogs/cats?

mountainofdebt

Well when MIL died, my FIL struggled to look after the family dog (as he worked away) and even though the family rallied around as much as we could (bearing in mind we all worked and had families) it soon became obvious that the dog would need to be rehomed.

He went to the RSPCA kennels where the dog had come from and told them that he would pay them for the dog's keep whilst they were trying to rehome it - and they refused to help.

Luckily a good home was found and he kept in touch with the owners unitl the dog died of a good old age.

I must admit if it was a choice between giving money to them and the local dog rehoming charity (even if they won't let me have a dog because I don't tick all their boxes) then the local rehoming charity would get my pound every time

Florence27

Their Trustees Reports and Accounts 2011 are on their website and state that they put down 53183 animals in 2011, so they aren’t trying to conceal it. That’s a lot of animals but the report explains that the majority were wildlife animals which were too sick or injured to be treated and released.

Their annual running costs are £120 million and they need to have several months running costs put to one side so they will have millions in reserve, they cannot let their bank balance run to zero.

dandelionclock30

CookieMonsta wrote: »

I am not ignorant of the situation. I've had to put down beloved family pets before. I've been to many RSPCA facilities and see how they're struggling, even with 18 million in the bank.

Money cannot just magic more foster carers and forever homes for needy animals. That is what is needed more than donations, space, food or wages etc.

I think you need to be more realistic about the situation. I take it you're doing your bit and have several rescue dogs/cats?

.

I have 1 rescue cat who was left for dead in the road by a car who never even bothered to stop for her as she lay bleeding and flattened in the road.I paid all the vets bills and tried to find her home,the owners never came forward so I took her on.
I have another cat where the owner was struggling to find homes for the kittens.My old cat had just died so I took one.
I also donate to a local cat rescue.I gave them £25.00 worth of cat meat at Xmas. So I think I do my best for ill treated/needy cats.