> The RSPCA's fundraising literature is therefore found to be misleading and frustrating and incites a lot of anti RSPCA feeling.
>

To be honest I have not seen any literature for a long time they do not seem to use the post anymore, possibly due to costs. 
They have a web site and a presence on the social networking system which, I suspect if how most people get their info these days, and these clearly show their scope.
Sorry, my one attempt at using a dremel, a cordless one, ended in failure when it was found to be faulty and would not recharge :)

Stooge - First you said that they were not there to 'rescue' and that's why they hand off to the smaller rescues, then you say they are there to rescue and that's what the public wants to see, and in fact they DO rescue (especially swans from boats because it is good TV).

unfortunately I doubt there will ever be a law that will stop people farming dogs for profit. Well that's obviously the very same defeatist attitude the RSPCA are taking. Can't win it, so don't try. 
They cannot "go to each and every puppy farm and prosecute them" because they have no right in law to do that. Their remit according to you is to prevent cruelty to animals. I believe that they can go to a puppy farm (I have lost count of the number that have been reported to the RSPCA) and if they find evidence of cruelty they can (I stress can, not will) go through appropriate channels right up to and including prosecution. 
If the RSPCA cannot or WILL NOT take any action against such blatant cruelty and deprivation (5 freedoms?) as is commonly found at ****** puppy farm (insert whatever puppy farm you like here) then they really are simply wasting their time and our money, and defrauding the public to boot.
Is it cruelty to stop taking dogs that people can no longer care for?  Is it cruelty if those owners abandon them to starve, get run over? Take them to the vet to be put to sleep even though they are healthy and friendly?
It's all too slippery, and rather disingenuous. Define 'Rescue'   Define 'Cruelty'   Define 'Prevention'.
Channelling resources at the best chances of success.  Good for profit making, good for meeting 'targets' which is fine if you are making designer jeans - not good for the animals suffering in the real world. Maybe your conscience would let you walk away from suffering animals because it was 'difficult', and take the softer option - not who I would want fighting for me or any animal in trouble. Sounds like you should be a promoter for the RSPCA - oops sorry, you already are LOL.
RobertK
How is it I am not surprised.......

> all the other rescues were in B&Bs and getting value for their rescues, the RSPCA and another large rescue lorded it across the road in a swanky hotel.
>

If people attend these things as a volunteer you would not expect a charity to pay for a decent hotel, it would be your choice to attend after all however, if your employer sends you to a conference as part of your work would you expect to be put up in an economy B&B?
Just because they work for a charity does not make them less deserving as salaried workers.
Similarly the executives pay.  This is one of our largest charities with a very broad remit. We have already been discussing what huge budgets they have to grapple.  It could well be a false economy to employ less experienced or talented people.

> First you said that they were not there to 'rescue'

No, I didn't.  I said they were not A rescue.  Clearly they perform rescues, generally where no other agency can but that is not their primary purpose.

> I believe that they can go to a puppy farm (I have lost count of the number that have been reported to the RSPCA) and if they find evidence of cruelty they can (I stress can, not will) go through appropriate channels right up to and including prosecution.

You did not mention evidence of cruelty before, puppy farming in itself is not illegal, however, I believe this is the local authorities responsibility  It is after all them that benefit from the fees, presumably to cover such things as inspections.

>Can't win it, so don't try.

I call it sensible.  We should not be losing sight of the fact that the RSPCA is for all animals and not just dogs.  If they pour all their resources into some impossible legislation that just might define puppy farming but not penalise hobby breeders it would have to come from the resources used for all the other domestic, farm and wild animals.  They campaign to educate people in what to look for in a breeder and, I believe that is the best way if not the only way to deal with it.

> Is it cruelty to stop taking dogs that people can no longer care for?  Is it cruelty if those owners abandon them to starve, get run over? Take them to the vet to be put to sleep even though they are healthy and friendly?

There are other agencies that deal with these things except perhaps the abandonment which is a criminal offence and these they do deal with when the evidence can be found.  If the RSPCA was to take in all these animals just because they were not wanted they would be swamped, and where would that leave their ability to do anything to help prevent us getting into these states and ultimately helping the charities that are now struggling to deal with the numbers.  I would again suggest you listen to the interview where GG explains it rather better I would say.

> Good for profit making, good for meeting 'targets' which is fine if you are making designer jeans - not good for the animals suffering in the real world.

I not sure how you think a charity can do anything without funds, not sure that you can describe it as profit.  These "profits" are exactly what they need to do their work so yes it is good for the animals suffering in the real world.

I am happy to promote them, yes.  I don't share all their views but I accept that it is an impossibility for them to match everyones, you only have to look at this forum to appreciate that would never be possible.  They are not perfect.  How can they be, their scope is far too big to reasonably expect them to get things right on every occasion but, by and large, I think they do a very good job in the role they have taken on.  Without them I think animals were have no real champion as I doubt the Government would ever fund this sort of work.

Just to set the record straight Stooge, at the time I worked for a charity, and yes I, would expect to be put up in a hotel that had a minimum standard but didn't unnecessarily draw on valuable funds, funds given by the public with the intent to directly help animals, The Hilton in my opinion is an unnecessary expense, the RSPCA actually made exactly the point you make in their defence, charity workers expecting to be put up in anything but reasonable accommodation smacks to me of government officials on jollies, or MP's milking the system.

Regarding the huge pay packets, Big doesn't buy Best, look around, the country is in dire straits, it's run by well paid individuals, councils are struggling to provide and adequate service, and at the top of these organisations sit people paid huge amounts, and as the system falls down around their ears, there supported bleat the old chestnut, you have to pay top money to get the best, well from where I'm sitting top money means peanuts because the best certainly are certainly not in place anywhere.

The RSPCA need to get a grip and forget the politics and increasing their portfolio, they've recently said zero tolerance on animal abuse, yet they seem to stand by when puppies are given away on TV, they refuse to take in stray dogs, and then blame it on the public, they decide not to prosecute the Norfolk pig farm for horrific abuse, and yet prosecute an old lady because she's too upset to have her elderly dog PTS.

> charity workers expecting to be put up in anything but reasonable accommodation smacks to me of government officials on jollies

It would not be a question of what they expected, I doubt it was their choice, but neither do I think the Hilton is too outlandish.  My husbands employer would put him in at least this level as most of these chains do very good rates for corporate contracts.   

> yet they seem to stand by when puppies are given away on TV

Not sure what you mean by stand by.  Did they know it was going to happen?  I know they released a statement within hours.  I think this typifies the unrealistic expectation that they have to surmount.

> they decide not to prosecute the Norfolk pig farm for horrific abuse, and yet prosecute an old lady because she's too upset to have her elderly dog PTS.

No idea about specific cases but wonder whether the decision in the first instance was theirs or CPS.  Too upset to have a dog PTS?  Who knows but if there was no evidence of neglect they would not get it through a court would they.  If they had not prosecuted no doubt someone, somewhere would be calling them for that :)

Your husband works for a charity that has a duty to use donations effectively then does he, and he thinks it's OK to be put up in expensive hotels ?

Seems par for the course, release a statement, make a pledge., unless there's donation generating potential, RSPCA are unlikely to get involved.

RSPCA don't use CPS, CPS requires a higher standard of evidence, many cases prosecuted wouldn't even get to court if the CPS were involved, RSPCA rely on private prosecutions, and their own retained lawyers, interestingly, a case has just been thrown out because animals were taken illegally on the pretext of getting a vet examination and not returned, I wonder how many other cases would stand that test?

No, my husband does not work for a charity.  That was not my point, I just used him as an example of a professional who attends courses and seminars and what they might expect, as nobody ever sends me anywhere :) and I did point out that the Hilton was likely to be not very expensive on a corporate booking.  People who work for charities deserve the same wages and conditions as equivalent occupations.

> Seems par for the course, release a statement, make a pledge., unless there's donation generating potential, RSPCA are unlikely to get involved.
>

I have a sneaking suspicion you would be just as happy to criticise if they had not released a statement as that would be par for the course with their critics.

> RSPCA don't use CPS, CPS requires a higher standard of evidence, many cases prosecuted wouldn't even get to court if the CPS were involved, RSPCA rely on private prosecutions

Then that suggests the evidence was likely to be even more limited in the case you cited.  No doubt some will critisise for them trying but then, again, if they didn't others would critisise for them not! :)

You miss the point, an employee of a private company is not using public donations to pay for hotel accommodation, RSPCA are, RSPCA ask for money to help animals, of course there's usually a fluffy animal being cuddled to reinforce that point, never a mention of gala events, hotels, company cars, pension schemes, little or no financial support for branches, my point is, RSPCA ceased to be a charity and became an income generating business a long time a go.

Makes no difference to me whether they release a statement or not.

Why bring a case if the evidence is limited? waste of public money not getting a result, not to mention yet more bad publicity.

I think you missed my point Robert, an employee deserves the same pays, terms and conditions no matter who they work for.  These are not volunteers.

>Makes no difference to me whether they release a statement or not.

So why comment on it?

> Why bring a case if the evidence is limited? waste of public money not getting a result, not to mention yet more bad publicity.

As I say, damned if they do..........

The RSPCA is the leading UK animal welfare charity. We specialise in rescue, animal welfare and preventing animal cruelty.
Maybe you are narrowing their brief for them? That seems fairly encompassing to me.
You did not mention evidence of cruelty before, puppy farming in itself is not illegal, however, I believe this is the local authorities responsibility  It is after all them that benefit from the fees, presumably to cover such things as inspections. I didn't mention illegal either, which is irrelevant. I am talking animal welfare, and cruelty, I do believe they are meant to cover those things? According to their statement they 'specialise' in them. The local authorities are not animal welfare 'specialists' far from it, their remit is very narrow in terms of licensing. The welfare of the animals is the remit of the RSPCA and they fall short by a million miles.

Let's see, does puppy farming come under animal welfare, preventing cruelty? both? When did you ever know of a puppy farm that didn't have welfare and cruelty issues (or can you defend them too?)

They campaign to educate people in what to look for in a breeder and, I believe that is the best way if not the only way to deal with it. Please..tell me you are kidding! Proven time and again not to work. But it will reduce prosecution figures, because they have admitted they expect to take less to that level, having handed out their leaflets and notices to those who are reported for mistreating animals, which will make it look like animal cruelty cases are coming down. Gotta meet those targets (who said they weren't political??). BTW I think you need to be clear on the difference between comment and campaign, as you mentioned on another thread that they campaigned against animals as prizes when in fact they were just 'commenting'. But they do that so well.

BTW, can you please answer the question as to which rescues are trying to get 'dibs' as  you put it on RSPCA funds. You stated it very clearly so obviously have some knowledge of it?
Gavin Grant's statement was put out to minimise the fallout and potential of further tarnishing their image by their decision to close their doors to hand ins. It was obvious to all but the most gullible, but some will always sit like baby birds with their mouths open waiting to be spoon fed and gulping it down.  Strange that the country is littered with RSPCA rehoming centres, and no-one ever said that they shouldn't take in animals freely before! When the going gets tough... the RSPCA bail out.

Thank God for the smaller rescues who will still be out there rescuing badgers, swans, foxes, dogs, cats etc etc, DESPITE their lack of funds (and doing it so much better). These are the 'other agencies' that you refer to? The ones who literally do have to run on a shoe string, who also get no funding whatsoever? ultimately helping the charities that are now struggling to deal with the numbers And you think the RSPCA is HELPING these other organisations. HOW exactly? Specifics please!!! I want to know how our local centre can get some of that help!  The situation they helped create you mean? 

The size of the RSPCA warrants the level of executives and senior management to deliver the charities objectives.

The saying (and not disrespect to primates) pay peanuts and get monkeys.

It is a business and so has to be run by people who know what they are doing with the turnover the charity deals with.

If people are so against what the charity is doing then why not send questions to the Trustees as they are there to make sure the objectives are being met if they are not they are bound by the terms of being a trustee to do something about it.

I agree that the RSPCA on the ground are not as effective as we would expect but expectations and how they can run the operations side is very subjectives as the money can only cover what they have. Yes maybe efficiencies could be made but I bet if anybody looked a bit closer you would be surprised how much they do with the money allocated to them.

>Let's see, does puppy farming come under animal welfare, preventing cruelty? both? When did you ever know of a puppy farm that didn't have welfare and cruelty issues (or can you defend them too?)

The RSPCA, like everyone else, can only operate within the law. Puppy farming is legal, and whatever you or I (or the RSPCA) might think about it, there is no law that says bitches can't have litters at every season, etc. They need to campaign to get the law changed, and in the meantime work to prevent cruelty from happening in the first place - and that means education. Yes, they prosecute where they can be sure of getting a conviction, but lawyers don't allow emotion and sentiment to enter the equation, so 'cruelty' has to come within the strict definition under law.

> We specialise in rescue, animal welfare and preventing animal cruelty.
> Maybe you are narrowing their brief for them?

I'm not sure what you mean.  I don't think that is a narrow remit at all.  It's huge given that it covers not only domestic animals but also farm and wild animals.

>Let's see, does puppy farming come under animal welfare, preventing cruelty? both?

I don't know what does puppy farming mean? As far as I know there is no definition in law.  We have licensed breeders but I doubt all have welfare or cruelty issues.  I believe one or two posters on here are licensed.  If they do have welfare or cruelty issues the first line of responsibility for dealing with that is the licensing authority.  If they are not prepared to aquire or purchase specialist understanding they they should not be collecting the fees.

>They campaign to educate people in what to look for in a breeder and, I believe that is the best way if not the only way to deal with it. Please..tell me you are kidding! >Proven time and again not to work.

Sorry, but I do believe in education but amused to think back on your previous comments and see that you think that in this instance they should give up on something you think is not working.

>Gotta meet those targets

What targets?  Working for the NHS I am familiar with targets but not aware that the RSPCA had been set any.  I would have thought they set their own policies, infact I am sure they do.

> BTW, can you please answer the question as to which rescues are trying to get 'dibs' as  you put it on RSPCA funds. You stated it very clearly so obviously have some knowledge of it?

I was referring back to previous posters that had complained about a lack of support for their rescues.  A cat one springs to mind but I am sure you will find them in you search back through previous threads on the subject.

>Gavin Grant's statement was put out to minimise the fallout

Not sure what statement you are referring to.  I was talking about the interview by Dog World.  I would have imagined it was by invitation.  I can't think he would have gone out of his way to "spoon feed" that particular audience :)

> And you think the RSPCA is HELPING these other organisations. HOW exactly? Specifics please!!!

By educating the public and campaigning for laws and reforms to reduce the need for their input.  These individual agencies are not in a position to do this so who else would?

Yes they need to campaign to get the law changed. Have they?

They need to be on the case with puppy farms (among other things). It is not simply a case of emotion, or the law, it is an animal welfare issue. They don't even want to know. You have to rely on other organisations who do give a damn to actually a) campaign and b) try and do something about it. They put the RSPCA to shame.

By updating and bringing together more than 20 pieces of animal welfare legislation relating to farmed and non-farmed animals, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 will:

* introduce a "duty of care" on people to ensure the needs of any animal for which they are responsible; * create a new offence of failing to provide for the needs of an animal in your care; * allow action to protect animals to be taken much earlier.- rather than have to wait for an animal to show the signs of suffering, enforcers will be able to intervene before suffering begins; * place more emphasis on owners and keepers who will need to understand their responsibilities and take all reasonable steps to provide for the needs of their animals.

Animal Health Minister Ben Bradshaw said: "The most fundamental piece of animal welfare legislation for nearly a century has now passed into law. The Government believes that by extending the duty of care to non-farmed animals, it will reduce animal suffering in this country. This is the culmination of several years work during which the government has worked closely with stakeholders. The result is legislation of which we can all be rightly proud."

What the RSPCA could have done and still do under under this legislation has never been done. Nothing changed. The law was changed and they let the opportunity slip through their fingers.  What's the point in changing the law when they won't make use of it.

>Yes they need to campaign to get the law changed. Have they?

They've been campaigning against puppy farming for years!

I don't mean just run newspaper campaigns, I mean effective campaigns.

So, they have campaigned for years, and have achieved........?

See the previous post for 2006 legislation (not the latest) and see how little of that has been made use of.

>So, they have campaigned for years, and have achieved........?

The same as all the other organisations which campaign against it.

> I don't mean just run newspaper campaigns

Whats wrong with newspaper campaigns.  Until very recent times, newspaper readership was huge.  They don't seem to have been slow to switch to the more current media networks either.

>> So, they have campaigned for years, and have achieved........?
> The same as all the other organisations which campaign against it.

:)  which raises an interesting point.  How do we quantify each organisations contribution?

The same as all the other organisations which campaign against it.
Who don't have the same 'profile' or money behind them.

I would still like an answer as to what other animal rescue organisations are trying to 'dip' into the RSPCA's funds, and how exactly the RSPCA is helping the smaller rescue organisations as mentioned in your earlier posts.

>The same as all the other organisations which campaign against it.
>Who don't have the same 'profile' or money behind them.

You said the other organisations but the RSPCA to shame.  In what way if they are not being effective either?

>I would still like an answer as to what other animal rescue organisations are trying to 'dip' into the RSPCA's funds, and how exactly the RSPCA is helping the smaller rescue organisations as mentioned in your earlier posts.

I answered both those questions in my last post, perhaps you have not read it yet :)

No I am losing track! One person complained of no help? This is other rescues trying to dip into RSPCA funds. LOL.

I am sure the smaller rescues flooded by the actions of the RSPCA slamming their doors are greatful for all the 'help' they are getting from them. (joke)

Other organisations like 'Puppy Love' who are totally independent, capture evidence (of neglect and cruelty) that can be used to help to get these places exposed. They are actually being far more effective. You were the one that said they were 'the same as all the other organisations that campaigned against it!' They are regularly campaigning outside Pet Shops against the sale of live animals in pets shops as well I believe (sorry if I have the wrong group on this one!).

Here's an idea, how about the RSPCA visit all the pet shops that sell live animals on a regular basis to 'educate' them about the puppies they are purchasing, and to ensure that (under the animal welfare act) they are receiving appropriate care? Be there when they are delivered to see that the travelling conditions were appropriate? Check that they were healthy on arrival (Another parvo death to a pet shop puppy within a week in our area 2 weeks ago) that they have up to date health records to help prevent the spread of disease, ensure that they have adequate space/ventilation etc etc etc.  If this is not currently in their remit, lobby for it to be included in their remit.  See what I mean?  How things could be developed if somebody had the will.

Smaller independent rescues who are taking in the dogs that the RSPCA are turning away are also putting the RSPCA to shame - by not turning them away, despite their lack of funds.

Re GG - This is exactly the target audience he needs to placate, they are the ones highly likely to support the RSPCA, but also likely to be aware that the RSPCA is turning dogs away. Oh yes, he needs to win the hearts and minds of the dog world if he can!

> One person complained of no help?

Who said one person?  I gave an example.  I'm sure you will find more people complaining that the RSPCA did not put up an animal or pick up the vet bill for an animal that they or their rescue had already taken in if you search through old threads.

> If this is not currently in their remit, lobby for it to be included in their remit.  See what I mean?  How things could be developed if somebody had the will.

Who takes the licence money from these shops?  However if you think they should be doing more of this why don't you lobby them?  It's not me that is complaining about how they allocate their resources.
I would say that they need to develop their own strategy depending on the needs of all animals based on their experience and understanding of what needs to be done overall.

> Re GG - This is exactly the target audience he needs to placate,

Why?  If you are talking about the sort of people that read the dog press we will be a minority in their considerations I am afraid, even in the realm of dog lovers and, as I keep saying, it is not even a case of dogs being the only animals they have to consider. 

Who takes the licence money from these shops? Irrelevant again. It isn't about money (you and the RSPCA think the same way)it is about achieving strides forward in animal welfare. The RSPCA already receive donations and legacies from the public to do this work.

I would say that they need to develop their own strategy depending on the needs of all animals based on their experience and understanding of what needs to be done overall. I would agree, apparently they have different parameters. But, if they have been 'campaigning' for years about PF, I would have thought they had identified a need.

Why?  If you are talking about the sort of people that read the dog press we will be a minority in their considerations I am afraid, even in the realm of dog lovers and, as I keep saying, it is not even a case of dogs being the only animals they have to consider.   I have no doubt that the dog press wanted answers from the RSPCA as to why they had taken such negative action at a time when people needed somewhere for their pets to go when they couldn't keep them due to no fault of their own, more than ever. So he has to trot out the spin they have come up with, which I still find pathetic. Most of their donations and legacies come from people who have companion animals, he needs to address this section of future money because they (RSPCA) had taken a negative action against dogs. It's called damage limitation.

why don't you lobby them?   LOL, I have tried to get answers to a couple of very simple questions from them on several issues. They should be politicians. They do not have to answer to the public and neither do they bother to. If they don't bother to attend call outs when animals are injured/in danger, do you think they care that any member of the public thinks they should be working differently or has ideas that may involve more actual real work for them?

> Who takes the licence money from these shops? Irrelevant again.

Not irrelavant at all.  If you are taking the money you have the resposponsibility of it.
They put in a presence at animal market and horse fairs up and down the country they clearly cannot be everywhere so if local authorities are responsible for licencing pet shops perhaps they should be there when deliveries are taken.  The RSPCA have campaigned and achieved the laws and regulations that these authorities can now use to ensure standards are met.

> So he has to trot out the spin

I don't think he had to speak to the dog press at all, as I say, they are a minority.  As for spin, have you listened to the interview?

> If they don't bother to attend call outs when animals are injured/in danger

It's not a question of bothering but a question of both resources and appropriateness.  As Lucy, suggested have you tried the trustees if you disagree with their allocation of those resources?

They should be politicians. They do not have to answer to the public and neither do they bother to.

I think that's a huge problem, the RSPCA are a closed shop with gagging clauses in contracts, recently they spent £40,000 investigating the activities of one of their council members and £80,000 trying to find out who spoke to the BBC about their Freedom Food scheme, that is not the way charity should behave, that's the way political organisations with secrets behave.

Why is there a need for such secrecy? maybe its because they are so secretive that people feel the need to be so critical, many in welfare see them turning in to another PETA, they won't be happy until there are no companion animals.

I can completely understand why they might wish to keep some of their information and strategies secret from some very large farming concerns, for instance, as they could equally mount counter strategies to safeguard their own interests over and above animal welfare. 
They are, however answerable to their Trustees and that is how it should be.

>they won't be happy until there are no companion animals.

Wouldn't they have to get rid of their own pets first? :)

To safeguard their own interests over and above animal welfare

And there you have it, animal welfare takes second place to RSPCA interests.

Wouldn't they have to get rid of their own pets first?

You mean the way PETA got rid of all their pets as they became increasingly radical.

You think the RSPCA are shining knights in armour, I think they have questions to answer to the way they operate and spend donated money, we'll have to agree to disagree.

> To safeguard their own interests over and above animal welfare
>
> And there you have it, animal welfare takes second place to RSPCA interests.
>

Robert, I think it is quite clear I was not referring to the RSPCA so not sure why you have decided to do that with my quote.

> Wouldn't they have to get rid of their own pets first?
>
> You mean the way PETA got rid of all their pets as they became increasingly radical.

Again, I am not saying they are likely to get rid of their pets or anything like it, so not sure why you have chosen to say that either.

>You think the RSPCA are shining knights in armour

I think I have said more than once that I do not agree with all they do but, by and large, for a very large organisation with an enormous scope to cover I think they do as well, if not a lot better, than many other agencies of this size do and because of the nature and importance of their work they do deserve our support to do even more.

Sorry Stooge, you replied directly to my comment on the RSPCA being a closed shop, so I commented on your reply, now you're saying although you replied on my comment, you weren't talking about the RSPCA!

Are you replying to comments in previous posts in the style of the Two Ronnies, answering the previous question?

Like I said, I'll agree to disagree, I'm having difficulty following you argument.

>now you're saying although you replied on my comment, you weren't talking about the RSPCA

I'm sure other people are not having difficulty understanding who is the subject in the second part of the sentence, but have another go with the whole quote :)

>I can completely understand why they might wish to keep some of their information and strategies secret from some very large farming concerns, for instance, as they could equally mount counter strategies to safeguard their own interests over and above animal welfare.

> Like I said, I'll agree to disagree, I'm having difficulty following you argument. <IMG class=qButton title="Quote selected text" alt="Quote selected text" src="/images/mi_quote.gif" width=20 height=10>

sometimes thats the best thing to do Robert...you'll never win. I'm having trouble keeping up too.Its such a shame that what started as a good thread turns into a battle

If they don't bother to attend call outs when animals are injured/in danger
It's not a question of bothering but a question of both resources and appropriateness They have the resources and it is highly appropriate for them to attend animals injured/in danger. That is meant to be their raison d'etre. That is what they lost sight of so long ago. Maybe like the NHS, they need to step back in time and see what it was that worked so well and change some things back to they way they were. Sometimes you have to go back to move forward. They are moving further and further away from the animals on the ground. They should prioritise the use of their resources on UK problems rather than international projects too, since there are many OTHER organisations set up for this very purpose. Since when did anyone decide the RSPCA should operate overseas, whilst withdrawing services from animals in the UK on the basis of not enough funds?

Freds Mum
I don't think it is a battle so much as simply completely opposing views.

But I think it is time for me at least to agree to disagree because otherwise this could go on ad infinitum, and my holiday looms with nothing done.........and the dogs have more stuff to pack than I do !

RobertK, I hand the baton entirely to you LOL

> I don't think it is a battle so much as simply completely opposing views

its always the same people who seem intent on being the voice of the opposition though....giveing people a hard time simply for not agreeing with them.

As much as I'd like to take up baton, there's a tin of white gloss, a paintbrush and some skirting calling, I then need to watch some paint dry.

LOL