Welcome
-
Help Stop Animal Welfare Crime
IS THE RSPCA RUNNING A MAJOR SCAM,
WITH
PARLIAMENT, LAWYERS, MEDIA & OTHER KEY PLAYERS COMPLICIT IN MAKING IT WORK?
- SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE RSPCA, AND ITS DE FACTO USURPATION
OF THE ROLE OF THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR...
All the evidence suggests that we are looking at an integrated and sophisticated scam indicating the complete sabotage of public and legal ethics? We suggest that the RSPCA has found out how to game the legal system for nefarious purposes, and that we need to research the individuals and interest groups they have either bribed to support them, or intimidated into keeping quiet. It is likely no effort to shut them down will be successful unless this exercise is undertaken as a prior move.
Consider the following:
ISN’T IT ASKING FOR TROUBLE if we allow the RSPCA
1) to advise Parliament on animal welfare legislation, and
2) act as a pseudo police-force and
3) run animal welfare prosecutions, and
4) collect half the fines imposed by the court?
Isn’t the likelihood of trouble increased if the RSPCA
5) regularly employs both QCs and high profile private lawyers in summary cases in magistrates courts,
6) with a donor provided slush fund it can deploy to intimidate or bribe witnesses or potential ‘experts’ for the defence, or mount supplementary evidence in massive quantities, suitably edited and honed – while
7) exploiting its PR provided reputation as a charity, as it
8) ruthlessly sells high quality animals it has seized from sanctuaries and breeders,
9) using the justification of the highly subjective ‘neglect’ clauses of the animal welfare legislation it has helped draft - precisely to make this possible!
Moreover, pondering the above, do we need to ask
10) why convictions follow a pretty standardised template, in which the defence lawyer makes strenuous efforts to get the accused to agree to a guilty plea, in order to ‘minimise court time’ and be rewarded with ‘reduction of penalty’ and ‘cost’? And the high penalties applying to animal welfare legislation encouraging this submission to pressure are provided by parliamentary vote, supported in turn by ‘public opinion’ that is
11) created by the Goebbelesque propaganda published by a complicit media using media releases given them by the RSPCA unedited, unchecked and completely verbatim – even when these are best described as abusive and defamatory, as well as prior to trial, and using standard reliance on such subjective adjectives as “appalling” and phrases such as “the worst case I’ve ever seen” – this same while
12) simultaneously refusing to publish any comments, statements or questions from the accused.
And where does it say that our courts should
13) run high impact trials without a jury before a single sitting magistrate under severe pressure to oblige his mates?
Or allow that same magistrate
14) to grant court approval to the RSPCA to “sell or dispose “ of seized (= stolen) animals PRIOR TO TRIAL, thus permitting the so-called ‘shelters’ to support the fencing of stolen property under the remarkably thin disguise of Orwellian terms such as “adoption” and “re-homing” ? Etc.
Meantime, possibly the most under-remarked aspect of the way they run their carefully targeted attacks on both totally ordinary and high profile people and places needs close scrutiny, namely
15) their access, both formal and ‘informal’ (ie illegal), to police surveillance technologies, resources, and assistance. (This data could make the News of the World scandal look like a set of minor peccadilloes.)
Consider the following:
ISN’T IT ASKING FOR TROUBLE if we allow the RSPCA
1) to advise Parliament on animal welfare legislation, and
2) act as a pseudo police-force and
3) run animal welfare prosecutions, and
4) collect half the fines imposed by the court?
Isn’t the likelihood of trouble increased if the RSPCA
5) regularly employs both QCs and high profile private lawyers in summary cases in magistrates courts,
6) with a donor provided slush fund it can deploy to intimidate or bribe witnesses or potential ‘experts’ for the defence, or mount supplementary evidence in massive quantities, suitably edited and honed – while
7) exploiting its PR provided reputation as a charity, as it
8) ruthlessly sells high quality animals it has seized from sanctuaries and breeders,
9) using the justification of the highly subjective ‘neglect’ clauses of the animal welfare legislation it has helped draft - precisely to make this possible!
Moreover, pondering the above, do we need to ask
10) why convictions follow a pretty standardised template, in which the defence lawyer makes strenuous efforts to get the accused to agree to a guilty plea, in order to ‘minimise court time’ and be rewarded with ‘reduction of penalty’ and ‘cost’? And the high penalties applying to animal welfare legislation encouraging this submission to pressure are provided by parliamentary vote, supported in turn by ‘public opinion’ that is
11) created by the Goebbelesque propaganda published by a complicit media using media releases given them by the RSPCA unedited, unchecked and completely verbatim – even when these are best described as abusive and defamatory, as well as prior to trial, and using standard reliance on such subjective adjectives as “appalling” and phrases such as “the worst case I’ve ever seen” – this same while
12) simultaneously refusing to publish any comments, statements or questions from the accused.
And where does it say that our courts should
13) run high impact trials without a jury before a single sitting magistrate under severe pressure to oblige his mates?
Or allow that same magistrate
14) to grant court approval to the RSPCA to “sell or dispose “ of seized (= stolen) animals PRIOR TO TRIAL, thus permitting the so-called ‘shelters’ to support the fencing of stolen property under the remarkably thin disguise of Orwellian terms such as “adoption” and “re-homing” ? Etc.
Meantime, possibly the most under-remarked aspect of the way they run their carefully targeted attacks on both totally ordinary and high profile people and places needs close scrutiny, namely
15) their access, both formal and ‘informal’ (ie illegal), to police surveillance technologies, resources, and assistance. (This data could make the News of the World scandal look like a set of minor peccadilloes.)