mattydski 560 Posted December 23, 2012 Report Share Posted December 23, 2012 The Heythrop Hunt in Oxfordshire was pursued by the RSPCA (INS) By Christopher Hope TRUSTEES of the RSPCA broke charity rules by sanctioning a £300,000 prosecution of David Cameron's local hunt, according to a cross-party group of MPs and peers including Lord Heseltine, the former Cabinet minister. The politicians have reported the RSPCA to the Charity Commission for breaching a "duty of prudence" that governs their actions. The group, which includes Simon Hart, the Conservative MP, Kate Hoey, the Labour MP, Mark Williams, the Liberal Democrat MP, and Baroness Mallalieu, told the watchdog that they had "concerns about the motivation for bringing this prosecution". They described the £326,000 cost of bringing the private prosecution against members of the Heythrop Hunt in Oxfordshire as "staggering" and urged William Shawcross, the chairman of the Commission, to investigate. The Prime Minister, whose Witney constituency covers Heythrop, rode with the hunt before the hunting ban was introduced by Labour in 2005. Earlier this week, District Judge Tim Pattinson questioned the amount of donors' money spent on bringing the successful private prosecution. He suggested that "members of the public may feel that RSPCA funds can be more usefully employed". The hunt and its members were fined £6,800 after admitting four charges of unlawfully hunting a wild fox with dogs. The judge drew attention to the fact that the private prosecution cost nearly 10 times more than the defence costs of £35,000. The MPs and peers quoted his comments and questioned why the RSPCA engaged three barristers and a solicitors' firm called Fishburns, "a London-based specialist law firm providing legal services to the insurance and reinsurance markets". The firm was "engaged despite the fact that the RSPCA has its own in-house legal department", the group said in the letter, which has been seen by The Telegraph. They added: "We believe that this 'staggering' expenditure constitutes a clear breach of the 'duty of prudence' by the trustees of the RSPCA in that it cannot possibly be argued that charitable funds and assets have been used reasonably." The "duty of prudence" aims to conserve the property of the trust. It is not a duty set out in the Charities Act 2006 or any other statute, but reflects principles defined through cases dealt within the courts. The group’s concern was that “if the prosecution was justified, exactly the same result could have been achieved for a fraction of the cost with prudent management”. 13 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tegater 789 Posted December 23, 2012 Report Share Posted December 23, 2012 That's good news Matt and hopefully they will think twice about it in the future Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Brewman 1,190 Posted December 23, 2012 Report Share Posted December 23, 2012 Hmmm what's that smell? Oh, just a little corruption in the air, me thinks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mattyg 1,862 Posted December 23, 2012 Report Share Posted December 23, 2012 even clarkson had a few words to say about it on his page in the sun! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
lanesra 3,961 Posted December 23, 2012 Report Share Posted December 23, 2012 It wouldn't surprise me if the Government Didnt bail them out . . Well they did the other shower of conmen THE BANKS ! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
forest of dean redneck 11,194 Posted December 23, 2012 Report Share Posted December 23, 2012 doubt anything will become of it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
the big chief 3,099 Posted December 23, 2012 Report Share Posted December 23, 2012 nothing will come of it that is fact stuff like that needs to be all over the media to show how corrupt the twats are not just a couple of papers Quote Link to post Share on other sites
chartpolski 20,510 Posted December 23, 2012 Report Share Posted December 23, 2012 Hmmm what's that smell? Oh, just a little corruption in the air, me thinks. Nothing corrupt about it ! Just a bunch of politicaly motivated, very well paid "charity" executives using the donations of "useful idiots" to try and embarrass the Tories !! Cameron, (and Rebbeca Brooks), used to ride out with the Heythrop, and to succeed in a criminal prosecution, no matter what the cost, will, in the RSPCA's mind, make Cameron think twice about giving a free vote on the repeal of the ban !! By the way, Prince Charles threatened to move abroad if the ban came into place... he didn't, of course; but wouldn't it be great if he removed the RSPCA's Royal Warrant, when he finaly becomes King ?? Cheers. 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
B.P.R 2,798 Posted December 23, 2012 Report Share Posted December 23, 2012 on the raidio people were saying this case has done more harm to the rspca's reputation than good. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Seeker 3,048 Posted December 23, 2012 Report Share Posted December 23, 2012 Just read they have set up a seperate fund asking for £3.00 per month to help fund legal campaigns. Why is it that no reporter when the RSPCA are standing there saying they will spend any amount of money to protect any animal no matter how small never ask them if that's the case why the put to sleep thousands of healthy dogs every year? Why is that question never asked of them??? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
whippet 99 2,613 Posted December 23, 2012 Report Share Posted December 23, 2012 it doesnt matter what happens ,.the important thing is that it has come into the media spot light ................ and rightly so .......the money could of been used to help alot of sick animals instead of a personal avengence.........id say result and if any thing arises for misconduct then even better still.......... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Brewman 1,190 Posted December 23, 2012 Report Share Posted December 23, 2012 Misusing the donations is a form of corruption even if by a charity for a supposed good cause of prosecuting that case and the fact the costs were hardly proportionate to the result. Not only that but they instructed a legal team outside of their own who would have been paid thousands. People will get fed up and I've heard ordinary pet owners who are non hunters slating them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
graham4877 1,181 Posted December 23, 2012 Report Share Posted December 23, 2012 You just hang on in there lads.. MY dictator ship will be cast upon this dam country soon.. and i will GAS the f*****g lot of them scum bags 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mattydski 560 Posted December 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 23, 2012 it doesnt matter what happens ,.the important thing is that it has come into the media spot light ................ and rightly so .......the money could of been used to help alot of sick animals instead of a personal avengence.........id say result and if any thing arises for misconduct then even better still.......... Thats my perspective too.... Its the donator's belief they are stopping healthy, homeless animals being put to sleep...... The reality is, more animals will be harmed as a result of the RSPCA's successful prosecution than will be saved... I wonder how many of them 'anti hunting' RSPCA officials are vegetarians, who won't wear leather shoes, have leather seats in their cars, etc... How many of the charity chief executives would do the job, without the big salaries?? they probably earn more than the PM him self.. its the hypocrisy and lack of understanding that frustrates me... 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
forest of dean redneck 11,194 Posted December 23, 2012 Report Share Posted December 23, 2012 Hmmm what's that smell? Oh, just a little corruption in the air, me thinks. Nothing corrupt about it ! Just a bunch of politicaly motivated, very well paid "charity" executives using the donations of "useful idiots" to try and embarrass the Tories !! Cameron, (and Rebbeca Brooks), used to ride out with the Heythrop, and to succeed in a criminal prosecution, no matter what the cost, will, in the RSPCA's mind, make Cameron think twice about giving a free vote on the repeal of the ban !! By the way, Prince Charles threatened to move abroad if the ban came into place... he didn't, of course; but wouldn't it be great if he removed the RSPCA's Royal Warrant, when he finaly becomes King ?? Cheers. do you reckon he will get chance,i cant see queen letting go that quickly,i wonder if it will go straight to william. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.