Apparently Google has its knickers all in a twist over those cunts in the Eu and some shite about cookies. Frankly if they are biscuits then I will eat them, if you are concerned about this then fuck off somewhere else and read something else.

Thursday, 22 November 2012

RSPCA again

Lobbying our elected representatives for change and improvement is a right that is at the core of our democratic process. The Countryside Alliance participates in lobbying on your behalf on a number of issues - we ask you to get involved where you can too (see below story on the Law Commission). It seems, however, that taking this route does not apply if you are the RSPCA, which appears to feel it can bypass the lobbying process altogether.

This attitude was highlighted during the recent badger cull furore, which saw feelings run high. Gavin Grant, CEO of the RSPCA stated publicly that anyone involved in the cull would be "named and we will decide as citizens whether they will be shamed". He knows such actions could lead to reprisals, possibly violent, for farmers and shooters, which is why he made such a provocative statement.

Threatening people's personal security whilst they are carrying out a perfectly legal activity cannot be justified. This example shows, once again, that the RSPCA believes it is above the law when it comes to fighting for its agenda, even if this involves promoting violence and other illegal acts. There is an inconsistency at play: using the law to prosecute hunts, but reverting to mob rule when rulings go against their way of thinking. This should not be the way a Royal Society does business.

To add salt to the wounds, the RSPCA has threatened desperate farmers with removal of their "Freedom Food" label from any farm taking part in the cull. This is completely disingenuous. Surely they would advocate the culling of animals that were causing disease to any livestock? Indeed, the RSPCA is even part of the Deer Initiative, which tackles the issue of over population of deer through culling. How can the Society possibly justify the one but not the other?

The RSPCA has five key pledges. Pledge three states that "We pledge to increase the proportion of animals reared under higher welfare systems in the UK." By opposing the cull, they break this pledge by actively preventing cattle from being protected from disease. Once again, the RSPCA has shown itself to be little more than an extremist animal rights organisation which is more concerned with promoting philosophies than protecting animals.

Barney White-Spunner
Executive Chairman


Hippo said...

I live in a dictatorship too, but at least it is a benign one.

Dan said...

By opposing a cull of infected badgers, the RSPCA are acting to increase the numbers of badgers which will suffer from, and die as a result of infections of bovine TB. They are also acting to increase the numbers of cattle which will similarly be culled because of bTB.

Their organisation has tax-exempt charitable status because of their work in preventing cruelty to animals. In the light of their acting to increase the suffering of badgers (tuberculosis is a very painful disease), I would question whether the RSPCA ought to retain it's charitable status.

This argument probably won't lose the RSPCA charitable status, but it will bring the organisation to heel.