Have The RSPCA Failed to Act on Dog Fighting?
RSPCA state they have not acted on dog fighters.
A shock revelation in a London newspaper claims that the RSPCA, the UK’s largest animal welfare charity, have intelligence on dog fighting but have failed to act on it due to a lack of “back up”. Dawn Avery, RSPCA inspector, is instead calling for the introduction of Borough Action Responsible Canines (BARC) to be brought into force in the area. The story in the Waltham Forest Guardian also quoted RSPCA chief inspector Jan Eachus stating that dog fighting in the area was now at an all time high with more dog fighting incidents since the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991(DDA) first came into force. Speaking to people in the area confirms this and yet nothing is being done.
What exactly is going on?
The RSPCA have been reported throughout the year as having been involved in a number of raids around the country tackling those who are involved in the barbaric “sport” of dog fighting. They can do it; they have been doing it so why aren’t they doing it in London? With the intelligence already there, as stated in the article, the only possible back up needed would be from the Metropolitan police. RSPCA inspectors cannot enter private premises without police presence and a warrant unless they are invited in but lets face it, a dog fighter is not going to allow the RSPCA in voluntarily.
However to assume a lack of police back up is the issue is hard to swallow. The Metropolitan Police are quite willing and able to seize dogs under the DDA. A FOI supplied to a member of the Pet Owners Parliament revealed the Met Police had a total of 87 dogs held under section one of the DDA (suspected pit bull types) on the 30th April alone this year. Advice lines for owners caught up in the DDA tell us of police operations relating to prohibited dogs, most recently with police dog handlers attending a park fete where we understand a number of dogs where seized from their owners as potential “types”. The Police can only act if they are told of the problem and it’s highly unlikely the RSPCA would sit on information relating to a dog fighter without telling the police.
The BARC scheme requested by Ms Avery is a joint agency approach to tackling the problem of dangerous dogs. The idea behind schemes such as BARC is to educate people on how to look after their dogs and prosecute those who mis-train or fight them. The scheme is made up of the Met police, RSPCA, and local councils. Each and every one of those groups can and should be reporting and dealing with the issue of dog fighting. The RSPCA, Councils and Police can ALL prosecute dog fighters in their own right. The RSPCA are able to educate owners and force improvements in responsible ownership under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. They already can and do work together as we read often in the media. Re-branding is not going to make any difference.
To suggest that the RSPCA and Police are unable to enforce a law to (rightly) make dog fighting illegal when they have the intelligence to show who is responsible is unbelievable. However if it is indeed true then it shows more clearly than before that the DDA does NOT work and those dogs and owners already targeted would therefore be responsible owners whose dogs pose no danger to the public. The figures support this with successful prosecutions by the RSPCA in relation to dog fighting in 2006 not even reaching double figures.
Its time to start looking at the bigger picture and that directs us right back to a draconian, badly thought out and badly drawn up piece of legislation called the Dangerous Dogs Act. If the RSPCA, Police and Councils wish to have the time, energy and funding to capture and prosecute those who fight dogs then maybe they should get the law changed first so owners of dogs who may have enough characteristics of a pit bull type are only targeted if those owners fail to ensure their welfare, mentally and physically. We have over a thousand legally owned Pit bull type dogs in this country. Each and every one has been proved not to be a danger to the public and owned by a responsible owner. The time, back up and money spent on those one thousand dogs would have been better spent capturing one thousand dog fighters. Met police held 87 dogs as suspected pit bull type; they could have held 87 dog fighters. We have had one tragic death in this country due to a pit bull type 16 years AFTER the type was banned. We have had more deaths by legal breeds and crosses. The DDA is clearly NOT protecting the public and certainly isn’t protecting the dogs. The RSPCA, who have previously stated they will not be involved in DDA cases unless a welfare issue is present, are planning a series of “initiatives” this year getting out into the community. The chances of those events being attended by a dog fighter with his prized fighting dog are rare so whom exactly will they be targeting?
Lets get our priorities right and then we will be able to start really protecting the public and the welfare of dogs.
Highly Recommended: What dog owner wouldn’t want a piece of THIS action? – Get FREE dog food!
Related posts:
- RSPCA Dog Fighting Raids – Three Held
- Are the RSPCA Seizing Dogs Under Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act?
- Teenager Sentenced After Admitting Breeding And Selling Pit Bull-Types For Dog Fighting
- It’s time to repeal the dangerous dogs act – by Felicity Lynch
- RSPCA Speaks Out Over BSL & Dangerous Dogs Act
Loading ...
The RSPCA is NOT a law enforcement agency it is, or at least supposes to be a charitable body that promotes kindness to animals! However, today it is very clear that the RSPCA are more concerned with promoting Animal Rights as opposed to animal welfare.
It would come as absolutely no surprise to me at all if the RSPCA do indeed have information of ‘dog fighting’ and are not prepared to pass this information to the relevant authority, this appears to be common place with the RSPCA. The RSPCA are only interested in acting whereby they can directly benefit from the publicity generated, i.e. MAKING MONEY – their number one priority.
It is high time such serious issues as dog fighting are dealt with by a professional law enforcement agency, such as the police, rather than an Animal Rights Militia whose primary objectives are promoting Animal Rights, Political Campaigning and making money!
Reply
This may also be of some relevance, an analysis of RSPCA data 2008. This is the true picture of affairs, rather than the disingenuous information recently to have hit the headlines.
Between 2000 and 2006 the income of the RSPCA has risen by 66% to over £110,000,000, (one hundred and ten million pounds). There expenditure, however, has only increased by only 34%. Actions directly benefiting the welfare of animals has dropped by 32% over the same period.
RSPCA Statistics
2000 compared to 2006*
Phone calls received, Down 26.5%
Complaints investigated, Down 3.3%
Inspections, Down 95.6%
Animal collections, Down 18.7%
Homes found, Down 30.8%
Treatments, Down 18.9%
Humane destructions** Up 85.7%
Income, Up 66.1%
Expenditure, Up 34.4%
Cost of generating funds, Up 91.8%
* Due to changed in format RSPCA data can best be compared up to 2006
** 2006 data not published. 2000 compared to 2005 showed a rise of 85.7%
In terms of there prosecutions, you may like to read this article published this week:
http://www.disabilitynow.org.uk/living/features/hounded/
Reply
The second comment, by the Councillor, really says it all. At the end of the day those who control budgets in Central Government, Local Authorities and Police will dig their heels in, bury their heads in the sand and keep their hands away from the purse until they have absolutely no choice but to act. Sadly, that it usually after a serious or fatal incident has taken place. Prior warnings are typically ignored unless made by the Top Level incumbents. Dog/Animal Wardens, RSPCA Inspectors, Police Constables, what do they know about anything. They’re only the ignorant cannon fodder on the front line aren’t they?
Reply
The second comment in the article’s responses, by the Councillor, really says it all. At the end of the day those who control budgets in Central Government, Local Authorities and Police will dig their heels in, bury their heads in the sand and keep their hands away from the purse until they have absolutely no choice but to act. Sadly, that it usually after a serious or fatal incident has taken place. Prior warnings are typically ignored unless made by the Top Level incumbents. Dog/Animal Wardens, RSPCA Inspectors, Police Constables, what do they know about anything. They’re only the ignorant cannon fodder on the front line aren’t they?
Reply
But is it true? The RSPCA have been claiming there are huge dog fighting rings for years and come up with little but circumstantial evidence.
Isn’t it more likely that the police have got sick of going on trawling raids at the behest of the RSPCA? After all, it is the police who take the stick when nothing is found.
Sounds like the RSPCA want more funds and publicity and would like a few more laws to restrict animal owners with.
Reply
What is going on here?
If the RSCPA know of law breaking, why are the police not investigating?
The Met Police can easily send armed police to shoot a dog that was licking it’s owner who collapsed and died in the street and they can also send a team out to shoot a dog in Croydon?
How come they cannot back up the RSPCA or even go and check out the allegations?
It’s time that the government sorted out who deals with what, why are a charitable organisation (albeit with a police style Inspectorate, but with none of the powers) calling the shots (no pun intended)?
DEFRA or the Home Office or somebody in government needs to set up an Animal Control Agency that has police and other enforcement experts seconded to it along with animal experts.
87 dogs held by the Met Police, how much does that cost to hold them?
What else could all that money and resources be spent on in London?
Reply
Is anyone really surprised at this farce. The RSPCA was a product of the Enlightenment but would now be unrecognisable to it’s founders. When will people learn that this organisation needs to be boycotted before it will pull itself into gear.
Reply
The problem with the RSPCA is that they like to intimidate those who are LEAST likely to be involved in animal abuse. They employ far too many women who are used to having their way in their middle class homes, being an RSPCA inspector is the new chic employment for twits.
They really do need to understand the law and when told to leave they ought to listen.
One dayI would like to see the RSPCA disbanded and a new set up established , with people that do it for the love of animals not the love of money !
Reply
KAza
I really don’t understand where that post fitted in with the subject matter.
I’ve said it before and I have to say it again. Please don’t equate the politicians and management high flyers at the RSPCA Headquarters with the poor old infantry at the firing line.
I don’t like the political direction the RSPCA has taken over the last few years any more than most people, but the Field Officers have no more say in that, than you or I.
I have yet to meet ‘women who are used to having their way in their middle class homes’ who are RSPCA Inspectors (or ACO’s).
I am an LA Animal Health Inspector (in one of several of my duties) and work with the RSPCA Inspectors regularly.
The one I am working with on a complaint right now was ordered off a property. She left immediately and called me for assistance. Despite knowing who and what I am the animal owner still refuses to co-operate and it may well end up with a warrant to enter. Which I would stress is the last thing I want.
Threats have been made against the Inspector which may also cause the Police to become involved.
I know that the above happens to colleagues, RSPCA and LA, all around the UK every day and is very common.
Sadly your comment “they like to intimidate those who are LEAST likely to be involved in animal abuse” is all too reminiscent of the comments to Local Authority Dog Wardens when a woman is stopped for a fouling offence, along the lines of ‘you target the women because you haven’t the guts to go after the men’, ignoring the fact that it is mainly women who walk the dogs during the day when the Warden is working. I have been assaulted by men who I have stopped for fouling offences.
It seems to be the old, old story of damned if they don’t, as in this story, and damned if they do, as in your comments.
Reply
God you are blind arent you , DO YOUR JOB VISIT THOSE WHO FIGHT DOGS !
LA WELFARE INSPECTORS AND RSPCA REGULARLY ABUSE THEIR AUTHORITY .
Reply
REGARDING THREATS MURPHY TOO!
IF ANY RSPCA INSPECTOR ENTERS LAND WITHOUT LAWFUL AUTHORITY AND DOESNT LEAVE WHEN ASKED, THAT PERSON IS LIKELY TO BE FORCIBLY REMOVED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER, THEY HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHTS TO QUESTION ANY PERSON, DETAIN ANY PERSON OR ENTER ANY PROPERTY.WOULDNT REGARD THAT AS A THREAT , JUST A WARNING NOT TO EXCEED THEIR POWER WHICH IS ACTUALLY NONE!
IF YOU AS A LA ANIMAL WELFARE INSPECTOR TAKE THEM ALONG AFTER BEING WARNED NOT TO DO SO, YOU TOO RISK THE SAME REMOVAL AS A TRESPASSER….
SUGGEST THAT YOU READ DR BARRY PEACHEYS BOOKS…..
Reply
This is an excerpt from Dr.Peachey’s book ‘The Cockfighters’
The RSPCA
and the
Perversion of Justice
by Dr. Barry Peachey
LLB(Hons) LLM PhD BSc STh(Lambeth)CBiol MIBiol FCollP MBAE MCIArb FETC Cert. Mediation
I mentioned this matter in the Shooting News article. It is the case involving Mr Bill Sargent who gave evidence at Haywards Heath of the contents of the secret tape recording of himself and RSPCA Inspector Spamer. At Haywards Heath MrSargent gave full details in his evidence of his dealings with Spamer, and the time has now come to explain how the tape came to be recorded. This is the evidence that Sargent gave to the court:-
// ” I live in temporary accommodation in a caravan at the above address, and work in the area in the building trade. My home is in Plymouth. My hobby is breeding gamefowl, which I have done for a number of years.
At 6.30 am on Wednesday 9th,October I was aroused from my bed by callers. They were two men from the RSPCA Special Operations Unit. This came as something of a surprise. One of them had a Yorkshire accent, and introduced himself as Terry Spamer. His friend did not give his name specifically. (it turned out to be RSPCA ‘Chief Inspector’ Michael Butcher).
Mr Spamer accused me of being present at a cock fight that he was investigating. I told him that I did not know what he was talking about. He said that I was one of four men who were at this fight, and the four had been infiltrated by a man called Graham Hall who worked for the News of the World as an investigator. Spamer called Hall a “low down slag”, and said that the RSPCA had problems with him.
They were very worried about Hall because he was a witness in several forthcoming cases including the cockfight that they were accusing me of. One of those cases was a very big dog-fighting case in Sussex in November where Hall had done the same sort of thing. The problem was that the RSPCA knew that the defence had an expert working for them called Dr Barry Peachey, and Peachey knew enough about Hall to demolish the cases in which he was involved. I knew nothing about Hall, dogs, or anything else, and told them so.
Spamer said that he was desperate to drop Hall out of the cockfighting case because after Peachey’s team had finished with him in Sussex he would never again be credible as a witness for anything. They had to find a new ‘informer’ to take Hall’s place at the cockfight, and they had picked me. Spamer offered me £5,000 in cash to pretend to be the informer. I was horrified, but I thought to ask what would happen if I didn’t. Spamer said that if I did not agree he would get Hall to go to court and say that I had approached his boss at the News of the World offering them a cockfighting story for £5,000. Of course this was a lie, but then Hall was a professional liar for the News of the World , and it would not bother him. He gave false evidence as a matter of course.
I said this was blackmail, and Spamer said I could call it whatever I liked, but there it was, take it or leave it. They had no choice because they had to stop Hall appearing in this case. I told them I would think about it, and they left. I was so frightened that I did not know what to do. I had met the man they had referred to, Dr Peachey, on one previous occasion, but did not really know him. I thought the best thing I could do was to phone him, and tell him what had happened, so I did.
Shortly afterwards Spamer phoned me again and started on about me co-operating, ‘or else’. I told Dr Peachey about this, and then arranged to meet Spamer again at my caravan. In the meantime, on 17th October, 1991, Dr Peachey came to my caravan and installed recording equipment in it.
Spamer came back on 23rd October. This time he was alone, and insisted on meeting me at the end of our lane. We walked with my dog and talked for quite a while, but eventually he came back to the van. I sent him to move his car to give me time to turn the recording device on. When he came back we had a long chat. I told him all sorts of rubbish about things I new nothing about just to see how far he would go, and how corrupt he and his friend Hall were. He again said that Hall was a paid liar, and offered me money to do the same. Eventually I got rid of him when a friend arrived, and I turned the machine off. Whilst we were talking outside he told me that he had been warned by his boss, a man called Milner, (RSPCA Chief Superintendent Frank Milner, head of the RSPCA Special Operations & Investigation Department ) to be very careful of doing this sort of thing in case I had spoken to Peachey, because Milner was really worried about Peachey finding out about Spamer and Hall’s activities. I denied having spoken to Dr Peachey because I wanted him to speak to me on tape so that I could prove his previous visit and what he was trying to do to me.” //
Mr Sargent certainly had spoken to me, and due to the nature of the circumstances immediate action was required. The following is the text of a statement that I made to Messrs Stephen Fidler & Co Solicitors, of London. They were representing the group of alleged dogfighters in a case at Haywards Heath in Sussex who had also been ‘investigated’ by Graham Hall :
About 1800hrs on Friday 17th October 1991 I went to (…………………………. ), Suffolk. Here I spoke to the occupier, Mrs (…………. ), and a man I know as William Ivor Sargent. In the front garden of this address I saw a lightweight touring caravan, the property of Mr Sargent.
Inside this caravan I installed a Sharpe WQ268E(W) audio cassette recording machine with a remote microphone. This equipment was concealed. In the recorder was a new BASF Chrome……………”………………………………
[...............................]
How long is the Home Office going to sit still before it starts to look at all of the people who have been convicted on the evidence of these people?
How long is the Crown Prosecution Service going to wait before an enquiry is raised into all the various prima facie offences of Perjury and Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice that are revealed by this sorry tale?
Read the whole book here
The RSPCA Animadversion Site
Reply
KAza
“LA WELFARE INSPECTORS AND RSPCA REGULARLY ABUSE THEIR AUTHORITY .”
Of course, I think that comment says it all. I simply refer you to my last line again.
Goodbye
Reply