*Vent* RSPCA!

pops5588

houseimprover wrote: »

The police, not a charity's.

The RSPCA is a charity funded by donations made by the public, and the police are funded by taxes paid by the public. The money pretty much comes from the same place!

And just to add, you think the money would be better spent on helping thousands of other animals? Sometimes prosecuting the offenders and ensuring they are no longer allowed near animals does just that. Absolutely worth doing in my book.

powerful_Rogue

houseimprover wrote: »

The police, not a charity's.

So you would like the understaffed and overworked police to take on responsibility for all animal investigations and prosecutions as well?

Pollycat

pops5588 wrote: »

The RSPCA is a charity funded by donations made by the public, and the police are funded by taxes paid by the public. The money pretty much comes from the same place!

Not really pretty much the same place (imho).

People can choose whether or not to donate to a charity, they don't have much choice in paying council taxes or income tax.

ayayay

I suppose the RSPCA have to spend money donated by batty old cat ladies on something. Better this than politically motivated campaigns involving badgers and hunting, albeit it would perhaps be better if they actually spent some more money on actually looking after the animals they "rescue" rather than putting them down.

Actually, what do I care, they don't get any money from me.

houseimprover

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

So you would like the understaffed and overworked police to take on responsibility for all animal investigations and prosecutions as well?

You mean do their job?

(And I am a massive fan of the police but it doesn't mean they should pick and choose which type of alleged crimes to investigate)

powerful_Rogue

What do people expect the RSPCA to do if the rehoming centers are full, people arnt rehoming animals and they have more and more animals coming in?

I must be one of the very few that understand why the RSPCA have to make the decision to put healthy animals down.

Maybe if people didnt breed animals for money when there are vast amounts of animals that need rehoming, or maybe if people actually netured their pets instead of allowing them to breed and just palming the kittens/puppies off on the RSPCA we wouldnt be in this situation.

pops5588

Pollycat wrote: »

Not really pretty much the same place (imho).

People can choose whether or not to donate to a charity, they don't have much choice in paying council taxes or income tax.

Of course, my point is merely in response to a poster who is trying to say that the money of the police is better placed to deal with such scenarios than that of the RSPCA, when actually people like my mum donate to the RSPCA as well as, obviously, paying income tax. Regardless of who funds these prosecutions, sometimes they come from the same place!

marleyboy

houseimprover wrote: »

Quite, but it shouldn't be the RSCPA's job to do this and the money they waste on this would be better spent looking after animals.

If it saves just one pet, I would say its money well spent!

powerful_Rogue

houseimprover wrote: »

You mean do their job?

(And I am a massive fan of the police but it doesn't mean they should pick and choose which type of alleged crimes to investigate)

So if the police already have responsibility to investigate and prosecute all animal incidents, why are the RSPCA investigating and prosecuting?

You do realise its not the responsibility of the police to investigate and deal with all crime dont you?

houseimprover

marleyboy wrote: »

If it saves just one pet, I would say its money well spent!

Maybe, but they would save more pets caring for them with the money they waste on prosecutions