Full details of the animal cruelty allegations facing a 30-year-old wildlife rescue centre have been released.Ooooh, I can hardly bear it!
What are we going to read about? Vivisected vixens? Tortured titmice? Waterboarded weasels?
Oh. Not quite:
They are accused of failing to provide veterinary care and later of failing to put down a Canada goose, a collared dove, a magpie and a jackdaw.Failing to kill animals, in other words. Yes, I'd rather expect that from an animal sanctuary, so long as the animals weren't suffering. As we know, the RSPCA has other views...
There are four other offences, including keeping a fox and fox cub in unsuitable conditions, failing to prevent a duck from receiving an injury, and failing to give a wood pigeon adequate food and veterinary care.OMG! Has the madness of health & safety spread to the animal world now? If a hedgehog trips in my garden, can I expect a visit from the Tiggywinkle version of 'Injury Lawyers 4 You'..?
Of course, as WoaR pointed out in comments to that earlier post, these are - thanks to the RSPCA's cozy relationship with the Labour government - all strict liability offences.
They may have been driven from office, but their damage will take much, much more unravelling....
"a visit from the Tiggywinkle version of 'Injury Lawyers 4 You'..?" - Prickell, Spines & Sharpe perhaps?
Life at the moment seems like one lomng episode of Monty Python, except people like the RSPCA are deadly serious.
Memo to self:
1. do not read posts like this in silent libraries
2. stop laughing immoderately at notion of compensation-hungry tripping hedgehogs
3. adopt 'waterboarded weasels' forthwith as expletive of choice
Yet another reason to hate the RSPCA.
'Failing to prevent a duck receiving an injury' - all a bit philosophical really. Who here amongst us can truly say, before God, that we are not guilty of the same sin? The same injustice, the same inhumanity? Whilst I type what poor lamentable creature is at this very moment chafing its wing upon my hedge?
I think I should report myself because of such egregious ommission.
"What are you inside for?"
"Failing to prevent a duck from receiving an injury........
........You're going to bum me now, aren't you?"
'Failing to prevent a duck receiving an injury'
There's one in my freezer. Quick, get me a pathologist and a lawyer.
I need to prove it was suicide and I knew nothing about it.
The writing on the packing is going to be particularly difficult to explain.
That, and the giblets in a placcy bag up its parson's nose.
Evidence of premeditation. You're goin' daaaaaahn.
From the mention of foxes in the same paragraph, I can only assume that the people kept both and failed to separate the two enough. Nature taking its course, after all.
What they seem to be guilty of, in the eyes of the RSPCA, is doing good, but not doing it well enough. Looking after animals, but not to a high enough standard. I abhor cruelty to animals, but they seem to be applying human standards of 'duty of care' where basically they should be glad someone is doing anything at all. It's that old law of unintended consequences again: if an animal comes into your care, the full weight of the law is upon you. Best to not bother, and leave them alone. They can't do you for seeing an injured animal and ignoring it, but if you try to help, they will persecute you until you are broken. That's a funny definition of 'charity'.
"Life at the moment seems like one lomng episode of Monty Python..."
But as you point out, a hell of a lot less funny...
"...3. adopt 'waterboarded weasels' forthwith as expletive of choice"
It's very Sixties 'Batman', isn't it? ;)
"Whilst I type what poor lamentable creature is at this very moment chafing its wing upon my hedge?"
It's a minefield out there! Not literally, luckily..
""What are you inside for?""
Yeah, you can forget any street cred from Mr Big for that one...
"I need to prove it was suicide and I knew nothing about it. "
"What they seem to be guilty of, in the eyes of the RSPCA, is doing good, but not doing it well enough."
Indeed. The RSPCA would rather destroy a wild animal that they are unable to release back into the wild, even if that animal could live out its days perfectly happily in captivity, and also serve a role as an educational prop.
Another reason they will never get my money. Not a single penny.
Post a Comment