should be put down.

[Guest anonymous]

Can't believe what I heard yesterday on the radio. Anyone who is cruel to animals should be put down in my book, no need for it. So, to hear that some "big man" killed a terrior by kicking it to death boiled my blood. The story goes that some clown had an argument with his girlfriend and decided to take it out on her yorkshire!!!

 

Now, you'd also like to believe that the dog's life wouldn't have been given up so easy without the guy getting into trouble by lets say, the RSPCA, that's the Royal Society for the PROTECTION of CRULTY to Animals. Yes they were informed of the case as they are of many towards the hunting fraternity, which I might add, are usually false accusations unlike this case. Their response begs belief......................... In their opinion, since the dog died instantly probably from the first kick, it didn't suffer and therefore the guy isn't guilty of crulty to animals!!!! Have you ever heard anything like it?

[john rust 45]

WHAT THE FECK?

[Guest anonymous]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...g-to-death.html

[shooter19 0]

f****d up law

[Guest anonymous]

A man who kicked his fiancee's tiny Yorkshire terrier to death has escaped prosecution because the RSPCA decided the dog did not suffer.

 

Norman Llewellyn killed the animal with a single kick during an angry row with his fiancee, Julie Blyth, at her home Cirencester, Glos.

 

Despite Mr Llewellyn, 52, from Hertfordshire, admitting criminal damage he accepted a caution for causing suffering to Phoebe the dog, which was a gift to his fiancee.

 

He was also facing possible RSPCA prosecution but the animal charity decided not to charge him with ill treatment because the dog died instantly and did not suffer.

 

Beverley Carpenter, Ms Blyth's sister, criticised the decision.

 

"The RSPCA told us they could not do any more about it," she said.

 

"We think it is disgusting. My sister is devastated about it. It seems no-one wants to know - and we are upset he has got away with it.

 

"What sort of message does it send out to people?"

 

The RSPCA defended its decision.

 

Spokeswoman Judith Haw said: "The RSPCA is deeply troubled by the violent death of this pet dog and investigated immediately once alerted by the police.

 

"A forensic veterinary surgeon carried out a post-mortem which concluded that the dog died instantly and did not suffer.

 

"Evidence of suffering is necessary for cruelty to be proven in the courts and as an expert ruled that suffering did not occur, animal welfare offences could not be considered."

 

She added: "The Society fully understands and shares the public's concern and frustration but of course we can only act within the law.

 

"It would be an irresponsible use of charity funds to try to proceed with any case which had no evidence to support it."

 

A Gloucestershire police spokeswoman said they decided not to prosecute him because he showed remorse and had no previous convictions.

 

She added: "An independent investigation in relation to animal welfare was carried out by the RSPCA, fully supported by Gloucestershire Constabulary.

 

"The conclusion of this examination was that the dog died instantly and did not suffer, therefore no animal welfare offences could be considered."

[Guest SJM]

Sadly this is not the first, nor the worst instance of the RSPCA failing to help the animals they are supposed to protect if you look at the blue links on the left of the article you will see this one :

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/155...ourt-rules.html

 

The man says he tried to get the RSPCA to help but they wouldnt

It also says the puppies were "yapping" but they were only 10 days old 10 day old puppies do not yap they will make crying or yelping noises if cold, hungry or unwell, the very fact they were making these noises should have told the "man" (I use that word loosely ) that something was wrong and they needed veterinary attention, but instead he chose to drown them.

[emeera 1]

[Guest gaz100604]

guy should have is balls cut off stuffed up his arse and put in prison with big homosexual home boys for the rest of his natural life cnut

[Guest manda]

So if drowing them dont cause suffering and kicking a dog to death dont then us using dogs to kill rabbits and such shouldnt because the dogs practically kill them intstanly in most times, RSPCA are f*****g wankers and have double standards like the rest of these stupid anti's.

[Guest anonymous]

So if drowing them dont cause suffering and kicking a dog to death dont then us using dogs to kill rabbits and such shouldnt because the dogs practically kill them intstanly in most times, RSPCA are f*****g wankers and have double standards like the rest of these stupid anti's.

 

Aye, it seems it is better to have a dog kicked to death by "civilised man" than a hare die "naturally" by another animal.

[Guest anonymous]

"It would be an irresponsible use of charity funds to try to proceed with any case which had no evidence to support it."

 

This quote from the RSPCA also f****n boils my blood. The same clown who said this regarding an innocent dog getting kicked to death wouldn't think twice of draging you or me to court if our dogs as much as look at a f****n deer evidence or not!!! A waste of money, oh aye, you wouldn't want to waste any of them Millions you have in the bank right enough.... Wonder what you do waste them on....

 

The RSPCA is one of Britain's richest charities. High profile animal welfare work by its uniformed inspectors ensures that it has a steady stream of income from donations and legacies.

 

Half of the £70 million it spent last year was on the 328-strong inspectorate and on prosecutions. But it is the way that money is spent elsewhere that has raised concerns.

 

The society has new headquarters near Horsham, West Sussex, and trustees complain of the mountains of paperwork produced by their bureaucracy.

 

Campaigns, including the drive against hunting, cost the charity £4,415,000 last year. Freedom Food cost £1,632,000 in direct grant aid, even though trustees have been repeatedly assured that it would be self-funding.

 

A council member said: "The problem is that the society has never had to worry about making money so hasn't had to worry about economising.

 

"Last year the AGM was in Newport and all the staff and council members stayed in the Hilton Hotel. At the end of the day it's a bed for the night and it's an animal charity."

 

However, an RSPCA spokesman said people could not be put in low-quality hotels and expected to do a good job. "There's a balance to be struck between looking after yourself and extravagance and I think we strike that well," he said.

 

"I can only imagine that we stayed there because we got a good block booking rate."

 

The fact that the society directorate believes that more than £2 million can be saved from "efficiencies" suggests that those who work there are aware of slack that can be cut out of the system.

 

There has been criticism of the society's new £16 million headquarters, built to replace its old HQ in central Horsham.

 

The society says it was needed for the extra room. It could not have been built in a cheaper part of the country because many staff would have refused to move, leading to high redundancy and recruitment costs.

 

The council member, who asked not to be named because the society's "protocols of confidentiality" prevent councillors from talking to the press, said staff were already complaining about the new building.

 

The open plan offices were noisy and some employees were unhappy with the distance from the town centre. This concern may rise with the news that the lunchtime minibus into town is one of the potential cuts.

 

The council member said: "The society sold its old headquarters in the centre of Horsham for £5.2 million and has spent £16 million on a shed. We didn't need it.

 

"The amount of staff we have is ridiculous. It's because they like to run it on a military basis with chains of command. You could take three layers out of the bureaucracy and it would still work."

 

Eyebrows were raised when the society donated £,000 to a charity chaired by Peter Davies, the director-general, which is building a memorial to animals in war. Money was also donated by WISPA, an international charity supported by the RSPCA.

 

The decision to give the money was backed by the Charity Commission and, the society says, on the condition that the memorial "promoted kindness towards animals and discouraged ill treatment".

 

The RSPCA is appealing for a similar amount to save the Llys Nini animal centre which opened near Swansea in 1997. Local members claim the case is indicative of the way the society uses money.

 

The local branch, which raised more than a million pounds to build the centre, accused the national society of forcing them to build something more extravagant than was necessary.

 

They say that the £95,000 needed by September to keep the £1.3 million centre open would still be available if a more appropriate and cost-effective centre had been built, using local architects and cutting down on the administrative space that the headquarters demanded.

 

The RSPCA counters that the centre was built to the society's "national standard" using a "tried and tested approach" but the result was that it lost the support of some of the local fund-raisers now needed to keep the centre open.

 

It is uncertain whether the money will be raised in time.

 

Members who criticise the society's activities claim to have been ostracised. Paranoia and an obsession with secrecy afflict both the organisation and its critics. Private detectives have even been used to investigate the society's opponents.

 

Last year, the society spent £40,000 pursuing an inquiry into the activities of David Mawson, a vegetarian chef and member of the council. The cost of the failed attempt to suspend him from the council is reported to have included £3,560 to track his e-mails.

 

There was also anger earlier this year when The Telegraph disclosed that the society was planning to spend tens of thousands of pounds on an investigation into which member of its council spoke to the BBC.

 

The investigation, which some sources suggest cost as much as £,000, culminated in a 120-page deposition delivered to the Broadcasting Standards Commission last week disputing claims made about Freedom Food in an edition of the Watchdog programme. The BSC has not yet published a ruling. The RSPCA defended the expenditure, which it claimed was much less than reported, because it was "under attack" and had to defend itself.

 

A spokesman said: "The programme could have done us a lot of damage. If our fund-raising capabilities are threatened we will defend ourselves again and again." The society spent £4.2 million on campaigning last year, including taking out full-page advertisements about hunting in national newspapers.

 

Owen Perks, who was a council member and treasurer of the society, resigned last year and returned his Queen Victoria Medal in protest at the way he believed the hierarchy had lost touch with supporters.

 

"I believe the RSPCA should be doing the job it was set up to do and that's preventing cruelty to animals," he said. "It's become a campaigning body." Fears over repercussions mean that many critics within the organisation are willing to speak only anonymously. When they do, what they say reflects a desire from both the pro-hunting and animal rights wings of the society to refocus the charity on animal welfare.

 

There even appears to be an opportunity to find common ground between the two sides of the hunting debate, though both say that the RSPCA gives no effective forum for it to be found. One critic from the Left of the society said: "There's no open debate whatsoever.

 

"You've got to have members who agree with the objects but they don't have to agree with the policies. The objects are to promote kindness and prevent cruelty to animals. There are more important issues in animal welfare than hunting."

[Mickey Finn 3,081]

So if drowing them dont cause suffering and kicking a dog to death dont then us using dogs to kill rabbits and such shouldnt because the dogs practically kill them intstanly in most times, RSPCA are f*****g wankers and have double standards like the rest of these stupid anti's.

 

Aye, it seems it is better to have a dog kicked to death by "civilised man" than a hare die "naturally" by another animal.

 

Highlights their agenda, perfectly. At least you know what your up against. Feel sorry for the terrier, and the Hopefully ex-fiance.

[zap 4]

mods could maybe move this thread to genral discussion so evry one can see it maybe that way some might think twice before donating there hard earned cash to this charity

[deborah 0]

This story is yet another example of the RSPCA NOT doing what they should. That little dog had its life ended because of his anger, he SHOULD have been prosecuted and sued for loss of her pet/upset and anything else that could be thought of. What's he going to do next time? Slap a child??

 

This is the same issue I am having with the three young Afghan Hounds I found emaciated, dead in bin bags on March 8th. THEY suffered plenty!! Yet the RSPCA don't want to know about them either....

 

So a little Yorkie who died instantly isn't worth bothering about because it didn't 'suffer' and three young emaciated, matted solid Afghans aren't worth bothering about either even they must have suffered terribly!!! That yorkie died instantly yet the Afghans would have taken 3-4 weeks. So the long and short if it is.....they just can't be bothered!!

[Cold Ethyl 63]

what about the fear it went through prior to death?I feckin hate this s**t.I personally end up with dogs and cats etc whos owners cant be arsed looking after them.At least they gave the animal up rather than smashin its skull in.Theres no point in having animal protection laws if theyre not used.I did a stint years ago at the sspca and gave up after just 10 days because the law was an ass in animals cases the reasons were that people are killing each other and loads of other serious crimes animals come last.So could not carry on with the job knowing that.Depends a lot on the individual inspectorate as well a guy came here one day to see why i had skinny dogs and a pitbull lol.I showed him the dogs and he realised instantly theyre well looked after lurchers.Showed him every pet i have all the food and stuff in the cupboards and he was really apologetic he said himself sometimes people dont think to ask the owner what type of dog before jumping on the phone.Usually the same people that miss REAL abuse in animals.He was saying if they would stop banning hunting there would be less dogs in the cat and dog homes and less ferrrets too he says theyre overrun in scotland and are relying on volunteers to look after them cos they dont have enough people to look after them who know ferrets.RIP little dog shame the gf didnt take you with her i wouldnt leave my dog ever