*Vent* RSPCA!

moneysniffer

Too right - if Oxfam turned up at my door asking to inspect my food cupboards or my wardrobe, I would tell them to get lost. Same for the the RSPCA, I don't want strangers poking round my house thanks!

houseimprover

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

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?

Go on, tell me why Police shouldn't deal with all crime?

powerful_Rogue

houseimprover wrote: »

Go on, tell me why Police shouldn't deal with all crime?

Because its not the responsibility for the police to deal with all crimes.

Department for work and pensions deal with benefit crime.
Border Force deal with crime relating to illegal entry and smuggling.
HMRC deal with tax evasion.
Etc etc

You seem to be under the impression that because something is illegal, it should only be the police that deal with it, which is totally incorrect.

houseimprover

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

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.

9m pound a year on prosecutions...how many animals would that care for that they wouldn't need to put down?

marleyboy

houseimprover wrote: »

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

But a successful prosecution, particularly of a repeat offender, is hardly a waste of money IMHO.

houseimprover

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Because its not the responsibility for the police to deal with all crimes.

Department for work and pensions deal with benefit crime.
Border Force deal with illegal entrants and smuggling.
HMRC deal with tax evasion.
Etc etc

You seem to be under the impression that because something is illegal, it should only be the police that deal with it, which is totally incorrect.

fair point, so which government body deals with animal abuse etc so that it wouldn't be the police?

powerful_Rogue

houseimprover wrote: »

9m pound a year on prosecutions...how many animals would that care for that they wouldn't need to put down?

So they should just keep building re homing centers, paying for food, vets bills. What about the following year when the amount of animals coming in exceeds those going out, and the year after etc etc

houseimprover

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

So they should just keep building re homing centers, paying for food, vets bills. What about the following year when the amount of animals coming in exceeds those going out, and the year after etc etc

the greater good is in looking after animals, it would save more than prosecuting people/groups

powerful_Rogue

houseimprover wrote: »

fair point, so which government body deals with animal abuse etc so that it wouldn't be the police?

The RSCPA prosecute for animal abuse. They are the lead agency. However due to their lack of powers, they often have to have the assistance of the police.

Personally, I would like to see the RSPCA given powers to go it alone.

houseimprover

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

The RSCPA prosecute for animal abuse. They are the lead agency. However due to their lack of powers, they often have to have the assistance of the police.

Personally, I would like to see the RSPCA given powers to go it alone.

They are a charity, not a government body though, thus not their job to do this.