Around July 2020 the UK parliament asked for submissions into private prosecutions of course this brings the notorious RSPCA into scope. However as usual those knowing a bit more than they would hope and are willing to relay these concerns in a submission, find them deliberately left off the government website. Not the first time this has happened to me – So in the spirit of openness here is my submission.
Dear Sir/Madam
Concern: The RSPCA and its use of private prosecutions.
My area of expertise spans 23 years and involves animal rights charities and their misuse of private prosecutions to promote campaigns.
Narcissism has increased dramatically since the sixties and with it ways to promote a superior self in line with the aforementioned trait and is often confused with having a passion for something. Declaring an undying love for animals and removing all meat products from a diet is a popular way of satisfying or feeding the trait and so extremism has risen as we are witnessing on a daily basis. So it’s no coincidence the RSPCA the largest private prosecutor in the land is run by extremists.
The downside to all this is of course the narcissists need to attempt control of every situation for their favoured outcome as we discovered recently in the Welsh Assembly. In 2018 certain members of the assembly were informed the circuses had been setup and evidence provided. The opposition party were told Lesley Griffiths (LAB) withheld vital information from the Assembly so they would only ever support the ban she was promoting on behalf of the RSPCA. And yet at no time was she called out publicly by the opposition in over two years until the ban was announced on the 15th July 2020.
https://countrysquire.co.uk/2020/07/18/corrupt-welsh-assembly-needs-closing/
The RSPCA were controlling every stage of the review process and even prevented the right questions from being asked publicly in case it compromised what they wanted.
Herein lies the problem with RSPCA private prosecutions. You can’t ask an animal how it feels, leaving it open to interpretation. With well-funded expert witnesses and lawyers, they can manipulate judges in the same way they have the Welsh assembly with absolutely no comeback.
This means they can tie their latest ideological view point into a private prosecutions to prevent the breeding of ponies because they have decided there are too many ponies and horses.
David Roberts was lucky:
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/rspca-should-never-taken-court-2698117
David Hinde not so:
https://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/dartmoor-pony-breeder-david-hinde-banned-478732
There are also notable problems with their heavy reliance on ‘expert witnesses’. You would have noticed the name Prof Stephen Harris mentioned in the article ‘Corrupt Welsh assembly needs closing’. He is constantly being called out by other academics for twisting data on various other animal rights related concerns. He has been well funded by the RSPCA in the past for research to the tune of over 650K and will attempt to pass himself off on their behalf as impartial. This is another clear example of a need to control every aspect of any given situation, only this time in the courtroom.
One such report Stephen Harris wrote was influentially in bringing in the law on fox hunting. Only he twisted the all-important information on cruelty and received a rebuttal from the academic concerned:
“This has been a continuing problem with misinterpretation of my data that apparently began with an anti-hunting group in the U.S. That group’s web page attributed changes recorded in trapped foxes to changes in foxes chased by dogs. This is blatantly incorrect and, I suspect, wilfully done.”
“I personally have no stake in this issue in the U.K. other that trying to ensure that the objective truth is disseminated. If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact me.” – Terry Kreeger
Both the RSPCA and the League Against Cruel Sports have used Harris` services to bring private prosecutions against fox hunts. How do you think this is perceived by the public knowing he was twisting data to obtain the law in the first place?
How do you think the public now view the new law on the use of wild animals in circuses knowing once again it was obtained with twisted data?
The RSPCA and other such like charities have become embedded in politics and can be shown to heavily influence life changing decisions. They also need campaigns to generate funding. They can raise awareness of these campaigns by instigating private prosecutions with little or no come back, thus their need to control needs curtailing and preventing them from bringing private prosecutions is a step in the right direction.
If you have any queries of validation needed please do not hesitate to contact me.
thealdenham 