The husband and wife team running a Benfleet animal sanctuary for 13 years have agreed to close it to avoid prosecution over animal cruelty allegations.Yes, It’s this case again.
And what’s that? ‘Avoid prosecution’? How?
The couple were due to appear at Southend Magistrates’ Court yesterday to face 18 counts each of animal cruelty charges.I’m sorry..? This is legal?
But it has emerged those charges are to be withdrawn if the couple sign a legal agreement to shut Rescuers down, which is expected to happen before a court date next month.
The RSPCA is supposedly (it tells us, anyway) fearless in its determination to prosecute animal cruelty to the fullest extent of the law. It has brought charges. Yet now, it wants to drop those charges if the couple (its direct competitor, remember) get out of town? With the full connivance of the court?
Mrs Mepham told the Echo she had agreed to close the sanctuary, but said this did not mean she or her husband were guilty.Oh, and to put a further cherry on top of this already-rancid cake…
She said: “We deny the allegations and would have fought them in court, but we could not get legal aid. We do not have the money for the case because it has all gone into the sanctuary.
“Our volunteers have supported us and would not have worked here if they had not been happy with the conditions.”
The Mephams live in a mobile home at the sanctuary and are likely to have to go on Castle Point Council’s housing waiting list once the sanctuary is closed.Oh, bravo, RSPCA! Jolly good show!
That’s what little old ladies leave you their money for, isn’t it? So you can use it to squash the competition with a savage ruthlessness that would have a Sicilian mafia boss whistling in admiration, from your opulent offices…
And what will happen to the land on which the sanctuary currently sits?
A council spokeswoman said: “When the site, which is green belt land, is vacated the council will conduct a full review of its future use.“”How cozy…
The RSPCA, which has brought the case against the Mephams, said it was unable to comment.Really? Usually, you can’t shut these people up.
I’d say it was fear of bad publicity, but it doesn’t seem that they care for that any more. Indeed, they haven’t seemed to care about it for a long, long time….
They may be competitors for cash, but they're not competitors for actually helping sick animals. The RSPCA don't deign to do anything so grubbily hands on as that any more. Far better to sit in nice clean offices, and drive around in company cars, organising 'campaigns' and 'enforcing the law' than actually getting your hands dirty.
If the RSPCA were a real animal charity, rather than a nasty little set of control freaks, they would be helping people such as this with finance, and assistance with paperwork etc, so they could go on helping care for sick animals.
But no. Far better to put them out of business, and any sick animals can be put down sharpish. Bonuses all round!
They really are a disgusting bunch, are they not?
"Charity" my arse.
RSPCA ? ... bunch of useless wanna-be Stasi bastards ..
Fair makes you proud to be British and living in such enlightened times.
" Far better to sit in nice clean offices, and drive around in company cars, organising 'campaigns' and 'enforcing the law' than actually getting your hands dirty."
And then, when it comes to 'enforcing the law', holding off as long as it suits you...
This is so full of anti-RSPCA vitriol it hurts.
The RSPCA has to have very good reasons for wanting to close down a shelter. I am sure that if you went in to it you would find that there were very good reasons for it and for them being taken to court. I am also sure that there was also more them accepting the closing.
I am also sure that if they were animals that needed to be rehoused and found places they would have done so.
The RSPCA is a good organization and the have plenty of personel that do good work for them. It is obvious from the writer of this is so anti-RSPCA that I think I will be ignored or my comment removed. :P
"The RSPCA has to have very good reasons for wanting to close down a shelter."
Hold up, this was about 'shocking cases of animal cruelty' at first, which is why they brought a prosecution. Now you say the aim was to close them down all along? Hmmm...
"The RSPCA is a good organization and the have plenty of personel that do good work for them."
It used to be, when it was first founded.
You can't deny that it's now - like most big charities - little more than a political lobby group and revenue-generating body for its own staff.
Like all organisations, there will be the occasional officer who joined for honest reasons, and probably doesn't agree with the direction of the 'charity'. They will either leave, or become hardened to it.
" It is obvious from the writer of this is so anti-RSPCA that I think I will be ignored or my comment removed."
No, I can't ignore such blinkered 'the RSPCA is a charity and can do no wrong' views, and I only remove comments that cross the line into personal abuse.
@Sal: Go onto the RSPCA website, and do a search for your nearest animal sanctuary, run by the RSPCA. I doubt you'll find one. In my town (central southern England) there is no emergency animal (wild or domestic) treatment facility provided by the RSPCA within 25 miles radius. The closest is 40 miles away.
The RSPCA don't get involved in actually helping sick animals any more. They just exist to further their own interests. Another vested interest like the rest.
And as for re-homing the animals at the sanctuary they are forcing to close, the only reason the animals will be re-homed is because the owners are closing it down themselves. If it was left to the RSPCA to do it, most would have to be put down. They don't have the facilities to deal with them.
Post a Comment