My Dad has had a cat stuck on his roof for 3 days, the RSPCA came out today and put an open tin off cat food on the floor in the hope it would jump down to it. When that didn't work they advised they couldn't do anymore as the roof is too low to call the fire brigade, unless my Dad wanted to pay the fine/charge for it!
I don't understand why this annoys you about the rspca, what else can they do?
We have a local RSPCA centre, and we saw a baby deer get hit by a car one evening, the driver stopped and was very shaken but my husband managed to catch the deer. We showed the driver, who wasn't local, the way to the RSPCA. They wouldn't let us in even though there was more than one person there, because it was evening and dark I guess. The wouldn't even talk to us through the door to see what we wanted. They just pretended we weren't there.
I won't ever donate to them again because of it- they are too rigid.
There probably is a good reason for this. But even if there wasn't, you write off the entire organisation with one bad experience with 1 or 2 staff members?
There probably is a good reason for this. But even if there wasn't, you write off the entire organisation with one bad experience with 1 or 2 staff members?
it isn't one experience though
to cut a long story short many years ago my dad was travelling to a meeting, two greyhounds had run out and been hit on a major road, my dad stopped, phoned the RSPCA they refused to attend as they said that the dogs now had someone with them
my dad took them to the nearest vet who actually knew the owner (the dogs had managed to escape) but the RSPCA would have let them die at the side of the road, claiming that it wasn't their responsibility
and the blood never did clean properly off the leather upholstery
I took my dog to an RSPCA vet for years right up until she was put to sleep after a stroke at 16 and had mostly good experiences with them. The only times I was unhappy was when they pressurised me about letting Rolf Harris be filmed with us which I refused as it meant scaring my dog even more than she was already with the cameras, cameramen, Rolf Harris and having to re-enter the room to be filmed which she hated. Plus they gave her pills that made her sick once. However most of my experience was good. Having said that the people running the RSPCA have a huge wage coming in which should be spent on the animals. My mum refuses to donate to them for that reason. Also they should do more to stop cruelty in big business like animal testing businesses.
Slightly off topic but I read recently that the chief executive of Birmingham Dogs Home had been arrested on suspicion of taking as much as £450,000 out of the charities funds.
to cut a long story short many years ago my dad was travelling to a meeting, two greyhounds had run out and been hit on a major road, my dad stopped, phoned the RSPCA they refused to attend as they said that the dogs now had someone with them
my dad took them to the nearest vet who actually knew the owner (the dogs had managed to escape) but the RSPCA would have let them die at the side of the road, claiming that it wasn't their responsibility
and the blood never did clean properly off the leather upholstery
Can't of been nice for your dad, but again I can see it from both sides. The RSPCA don't have a huge army of officers waiting to attend every incident where an animal is hurt. They only have limited resources and have to prioritise what they need, and don't need, to attend. The as your dad had rescued the dogs the RSPCA did not need to go.
I don't understand why you think they would have let they die at the side of the road, the reason they did not attend is because your dad had the situation in hand. If there was no one helping they may well have come out. However, if they were on a major road, that would have required highways/police.
I'm not saying they are perfect. I can recall an incident when I could have used their help but didn't get any. But I have seen a huge amount of great work they do. Sadly most of their money and time is taken up the endless cases of severe neglect.
Can't of been nice for your dad, but again I can see it from both sides. The RSPCA don't have a huge army of officers waiting to attend every incident where an animal is hurt. They only have limited resources and have to prioritise what they need, and don't need, to attend. The as your dad had rescued the dogs the RSPCA did not need to go.
I don't understand why you think they would have let they die at the side of the road, the reason they did not attend is because your dad had the situation in hand. If there was no one helping they may well have come out. However, if they were on a major road, that would have required highways/police.
I'm not saying they are perfect. I can recall an incident when I could have used their help but didn't get any. But I have seen a huge amount of great work they do. Sadly most of their money and time is taken up the endless cases of severe neglect.
Nonsense
he was a passerby who did the decent thing and phoned for help, purely by virtue of making the phone call, the RSPCA deemed him responsible for the animals - where does it end, would he have been responsible for vets fees had the owner not been found so easily?
Don't the Police know all the numbers of the local 24/7 Vets though? Or the Control Room does?
Someone always must sort it out, or an injured animal runs and hides. I only rarely see unattended injured animals (actually mostly Roadkill) on high-speed roads.
he was a passerby who did the decent thing and phoned for help, purely by virtue of making the phone call, the RSPCA deemed him responsible for the animals - where does it end, would he have been responsible for vets fees had the owner not been found so easily?
These were animals in immediate need of help
talk about deflection
Deflection? I have no links to the RSPCA.
It's not nonsense, I'm afraid its reality. The RSPCA are not responsible for the dogs either, they are responsible when an animal is taken into their care. By collecting the animals your father took on some responsibility for those dogs.
The RSPCA knew that the dogs had been rescued and was being taken to a vet, so they can use their finite resources (donated by the public) on cases were there is no chance of rescue. Common sense really.
You have made an incredible leap of logic to think that he would have to pay the fees, like thinking that they would have been left to die. How do you come to that conclusion? You can say 'where does it end' to anything, but that's just silly. Anyway, you have not said he did have to pay fees, so that seems like an even stranger to say.
Your father did a really great thing, you should be proud. But it all worked out fine, so sound like the RSPCA made the right call.
It's not nonsense, I'm afraid its reality. The RSPCA are not responsible for the dogs either, they are responsible when an animal is taken into their care. By collecting the animals he had some responsibility for those dogs.
The RSPCA knew that the dogs had been rescued and was being taken to a vet, so they can use their finite resourcse (donated by the public) on cases were there is no chance of rescue. Common sense really.
You have made an incredible leap of logic to think that he would have to pay the fees, like thinking that they would have been left to die. How do you come to that conclusion? You can say 'where does it end' to anything, but that's just silly. Anyway, you have not said he did have to pay fees, so that seems like an even stranger to say.
Your father did a really great thing, you should be proud. But it all worked out fine, so sound like the RSPCA made the right call.
as you've read what you want it to say, not what it actually says, I shall leave this conversation
as you've read what you want it to say, not what it actually says, I shall leave this conversation
You said he had stopped, put the dogs in his car and that he subsequently took the to a vet.
It's irrelevant though really, the dogs had a responsible person there to help them. The RSPCA were not required in the circumstances.
They are not a huge government organisaion, they are a charity who rely on the public to help. Sorry your father was inconvenienced, but he did help and good for him.
Don't the Police know all the numbers of the local 24/7 Vets though? Or the Control Room does?
Someone always must sort it out, or an injured animal runs and hides. I only rarely see unattended injured animals (actually mostly Roadkill) on high-speed roads.
Also the police would positively have a dog unit that might be able to help (although they are extremely limited these days) or they could have possibly contacted the dog warden. They might have even been able to contact the owner.
A big issue is the fact it was a 'major road'. The police's primary concern would be the safety of other road users.
You said he had stopped, put the dogs in his car and that he subsequently took the to a vet.
It's irrelevant though really, the dogs had a responsible person there to help them. The RSPCA were not required in the circumstances.
They are not a huge government organisaion, they are a charity who rely on the public to help. Sorry your father was inconvenienced, but he did help and good for him.
But yes, it's very easy to understand. The RSPCA physically can't go out to every hurt animal, not even close, so they risk assessed and prioritised the incident as not requiring attendance because you dad was able to help. Clearly no immediate danger and they got safely to the vet. They concentrate on the animals that have no help or can't be driven to a vet. Seems fair to me.
to cut a long story short many years ago my dad was travelling to a meeting, two greyhounds had run out and been hit on a major road, my dad stopped, phoned the RSPCA they refused to attend as they said that the dogs now had someone with them
my dad took them to the nearest vet who actually knew the owner (the dogs had managed to escape) but the RSPCA would have let them die at the side of the road, claiming that it wasn't their responsibility
and the blood never did clean properly off the leather upholstery
Why do you think a road accident should have been the RSPCA's responsibility?
Their response was entirely appropriate. Under the circumstances I don't understand why anyone would think of contacting them first.
What I find offputting also is how many of them now don't offer a one-off opportunity to donate. They're not happy until they get you to sign some contract which has them taking money every month from your account. Don't know if RSPCA do this but I've encountered quite a few charities that use this tactic. It comes across to me as seriously ungrateful for the donations they receive, or like a used car salesman resorting to high pressure sales tactics to get you to sign.
I HATE this - I even have chuggers coming to the door now, & not just coming up to me in shopping malls. (My usual response to them? "I support what you do, but I donate to a variety of charities, & I like to give to them as & when I want to." I find being absolutely firm & not accepting their leaflets usually does the trick. I have bright hair so they home in on me - I let them gabble about my hair, then I make my firm statement & walk away!)
And people are in denial about the real use of the Snoopers' Charter. It's not Government you need to be afraid of, it's people who want to make money out of you.
That has nothing to do with the "snoopers charter" they had wealth management companies check peoples wealth status , they can do that by running credit checks , checking addresses and property prices , info sharing with other charities ( if you have ticked the box saying you do not want them to share info then they are in breach of the law )
Why do you think a road accident should have been the RSPCA's responsibility?
Their response was entirely appropriate. Under the circumstances I don't understand why anyone would think of contacting them first.
it wasn't a road/traffic accident
the dogs had been hit, were at the side of the road, the driver had gone, just two injured animals at the roadside
I was halfway through signing up to one of the charities for deaf kids when the chunt filling in the paper work asked how much I'd like to donate each month, I said £5 and her response was "Well if you can afford £5, why not £10. After all it's only the same as 2 pints a month"
She was constantly trying to upsell me as though I was signing up for a TV package. In the end I said I'd left my debit card at work and only had 5 minutes left. She still wanted me to go and fetch it and claimed it would be OK if I were late!
To be fair, while I wholeheartedly sympathise, its not entirely the chunts fault. This is effectively a sales job and like in sales she will have targets to meet and woe betide her if she doesn't meet them as likely she would be disciplined for that.
This is why I left sales years ago as target driven incentives make no allowances for bad days or negative responses. The feeling is that if people have said no, you obviously weren't trying hard enough. The fault is put on you, the seller.
In the past, you hit your targets you got bonuses. These days, in many sales areas including street selling, the incentive these days to hit your target is you get to keep your job for another week.
So its not surprising desperation would likely make her take such chances.
The RSPCA is an awful organisation. Hopefully it'll be stripped of some of its powers.
Didn't think they had any powers.
All the stories of 'RSPCA raided a puppy farm' or 'RSPCA prosecuted someone' are just baloney. It's the police who carry out raids, sometimes with an RSPCA person there as an adviser. The CPS press charges where necessary. If they don't think there's a case, the RSPCA can take out a private prosecution - just like any member of the public can. Donations that should be spent on rescue dogs are wasted on top-flight lawyers.
They are just charity workers dressed up in military-style uniforms. The lowest rank is inspector, which speaks volumes.
All the stories of 'RSPCA raided a puppy farm' or 'RSPCA prosecuted someone' are just baloney. It's the police who carry out raids, sometimes with an RSPCA person there as an adviser. The CPS press charges where necessary. If they don't think there's a case, the RSPCA can take out a private prosecution - just like any member of the public can. Donations that should be spent on rescue dogs are wasted on top-flight lawyers.
They are just charity workers dressed up in military-style uniforms. The lowest rank is inspector, which speaks volumes.
But yes, it's very easy to understand. The RSPCA physically can't go out to every hurt animal, not even close, so they risk assessed and prioritised the incident as not requiring attendance because you dad was able to help. Clearly no immediate danger and they got safely to the vet. They concentrate on the animals that have no help or can't be driven to a vet. Seems fair to me.
Do they? I've had a bad experience with them last year. I'm a nurse who was informed by a patient who had been admitted as an emergency 3 days earlier, during the hottest week of summer, that her dog was home alone and she had nobody to call in, not a neighbour or friend (she had some mental health issues alongside her physical ailment). The dog had been in the flat for 3 days with no food or water during an incredibly hot spell. I called the RSPCA who were extremely unhelpful and unconcerned, they said the dog was not neglected so they could not get involved. I then contacted social services who put me through to several other unhelpful and uninterested people. In the end, myself and a nursing colleague agreed to drive to the patient's house to at least feed and water the dog who, it transpired, had been locked into a bedroom by the paramedics who were not aware there was nobody due in to care for the dog. Luckily, that room was relatively sheltered from the sun but the dog was hungry and dehydrated as well as incredibly anxious. I then felt obliged to call in each evening after work even though it was a long way from where I live and I was not insured to visit a patient's home (even though I had her key with her permission). I felt the RSPCA could at least have given me constructive advice - they kept repeating it was the responsibility of social services even though social services only responded to my call after a further 3 days - rather late with the patient due home the following day. I am not sure how long the dog would have survived locked in one room with no food or water if I had not taken it on myself to intervene.
I do appreciate the rescue work the RSPCA do. I visited a local RSPCA rehoming centre a few years ago after my old cat died with the intention of choosing a cat to adopt. The cats were well cared for. However, I was shortly scheduled for a holiday abroad so I wanted to reserve the cat of my choice and pick her up on my return. This was not possible, I had to take her immediately which I refused to do since I had another cat at home and felt it was not conducive to the integration process to introduce a new cat and then put both back in the RSPCA boarding cattery (this was their suggestion at quite a cost) until my return. I opted for Cats Protection which were much more flexible and accommodating - I ended up taking 2 of their cats.
I agree with all those posters who are fed up with being asked to commit to monthly direct debits. I frequently get accosted by the RSPCA or other charities who refuse my proffered donation - all they want is my direct debit details. I have had bad experiences when I have signed up (not with the RSPCA) because I get inundated with requests to increase my monthly sum and deluged with heartrending sob stories. I have now cancelled all my charity direct debits because I was so fed up with being asked for more and more (I have 3 of my own cats to feed, insure etc, plus my pond fish - my spare money should be spent on them).
All the stories of 'RSPCA raided a puppy farm' or 'RSPCA prosecuted someone' are just baloney. It's the police who carry out raids, sometimes with an RSPCA person there as an adviser. The CPS press charges where necessary. If they don't think there's a case, the RSPCA can take out a private prosecution - just like any member of the public can. Donations that should be spent on rescue dogs are wasted on top-flight lawyers.
They are just charity workers dressed up in military-style uniforms. The lowest rank is inspector, which speaks volumes.
About as much power as the TV licence man . . .
Maybe that's why some people think they're some sort of emergency service.
Comments
I don't understand why this annoys you about the rspca, what else can they do?
There probably is a good reason for this. But even if there wasn't, you write off the entire organisation with one bad experience with 1 or 2 staff members?
it isn't one experience though
to cut a long story short many years ago my dad was travelling to a meeting, two greyhounds had run out and been hit on a major road, my dad stopped, phoned the RSPCA they refused to attend as they said that the dogs now had someone with them
my dad took them to the nearest vet who actually knew the owner (the dogs had managed to escape) but the RSPCA would have let them die at the side of the road, claiming that it wasn't their responsibility
and the blood never did clean properly off the leather upholstery
Don't they have the number for SO19?
That's far worse i feel.
Can't of been nice for your dad, but again I can see it from both sides. The RSPCA don't have a huge army of officers waiting to attend every incident where an animal is hurt. They only have limited resources and have to prioritise what they need, and don't need, to attend. The as your dad had rescued the dogs the RSPCA did not need to go.
I don't understand why you think they would have let they die at the side of the road, the reason they did not attend is because your dad had the situation in hand. If there was no one helping they may well have come out. However, if they were on a major road, that would have required highways/police.
I'm not saying they are perfect. I can recall an incident when I could have used their help but didn't get any. But I have seen a huge amount of great work they do. Sadly most of their money and time is taken up the endless cases of severe neglect.
Nonsense
he was a passerby who did the decent thing and phoned for help, purely by virtue of making the phone call, the RSPCA deemed him responsible for the animals - where does it end, would he have been responsible for vets fees had the owner not been found so easily?
These were animals in immediate need of help
talk about deflection
Someone always must sort it out, or an injured animal runs and hides. I only rarely see unattended injured animals (actually mostly Roadkill) on high-speed roads.
Deflection? I have no links to the RSPCA.
It's not nonsense, I'm afraid its reality. The RSPCA are not responsible for the dogs either, they are responsible when an animal is taken into their care. By collecting the animals your father took on some responsibility for those dogs.
The RSPCA knew that the dogs had been rescued and was being taken to a vet, so they can use their finite resources (donated by the public) on cases were there is no chance of rescue. Common sense really.
You have made an incredible leap of logic to think that he would have to pay the fees, like thinking that they would have been left to die. How do you come to that conclusion? You can say 'where does it end' to anything, but that's just silly. Anyway, you have not said he did have to pay fees, so that seems like an even stranger to say.
Your father did a really great thing, you should be proud. But it all worked out fine, so sound like the RSPCA made the right call.
as you've read what you want it to say, not what it actually says, I shall leave this conversation
You said he had stopped, put the dogs in his car and that he subsequently took the to a vet.
It's irrelevant though really, the dogs had a responsible person there to help them. The RSPCA were not required in the circumstances.
They are not a huge government organisaion, they are a charity who rely on the public to help. Sorry your father was inconvenienced, but he did help and good for him.
Also the police would positively have a dog unit that might be able to help (although they are extremely limited these days) or they could have possibly contacted the dog warden. They might have even been able to contact the owner.
A big issue is the fact it was a 'major road'. The police's primary concern would be the safety of other road users.
he stopped and phoned
the RSPCA said that he was now with the dogs
he then decided to take them to a vets
it's not difficult to understand
I don't know why you are being so rude.
But yes, it's very easy to understand. The RSPCA physically can't go out to every hurt animal, not even close, so they risk assessed and prioritised the incident as not requiring attendance because you dad was able to help. Clearly no immediate danger and they got safely to the vet. They concentrate on the animals that have no help or can't be driven to a vet. Seems fair to me.
Why do you think a road accident should have been the RSPCA's responsibility?
Their response was entirely appropriate. Under the circumstances I don't understand why anyone would think of contacting them first.
That has nothing to do with the "snoopers charter" they had wealth management companies check peoples wealth status , they can do that by running credit checks , checking addresses and property prices , info sharing with other charities ( if you have ticked the box saying you do not want them to share info then they are in breach of the law )
it wasn't a road/traffic accident
the dogs had been hit, were at the side of the road, the driver had gone, just two injured animals at the roadside
bored now.........
So it was an RTC.
To be fair, while I wholeheartedly sympathise, its not entirely the chunts fault. This is effectively a sales job and like in sales she will have targets to meet and woe betide her if she doesn't meet them as likely she would be disciplined for that.
This is why I left sales years ago as target driven incentives make no allowances for bad days or negative responses. The feeling is that if people have said no, you obviously weren't trying hard enough. The fault is put on you, the seller.
In the past, you hit your targets you got bonuses. These days, in many sales areas including street selling, the incentive these days to hit your target is you get to keep your job for another week.
So its not surprising desperation would likely make her take such chances.
All the stories of 'RSPCA raided a puppy farm' or 'RSPCA prosecuted someone' are just baloney. It's the police who carry out raids, sometimes with an RSPCA person there as an adviser. The CPS press charges where necessary. If they don't think there's a case, the RSPCA can take out a private prosecution - just like any member of the public can. Donations that should be spent on rescue dogs are wasted on top-flight lawyers.
They are just charity workers dressed up in military-style uniforms. The lowest rank is inspector, which speaks volumes.
About as much power as the TV licence man . . .
That's right they have no powers.
Do they? I've had a bad experience with them last year. I'm a nurse who was informed by a patient who had been admitted as an emergency 3 days earlier, during the hottest week of summer, that her dog was home alone and she had nobody to call in, not a neighbour or friend (she had some mental health issues alongside her physical ailment). The dog had been in the flat for 3 days with no food or water during an incredibly hot spell. I called the RSPCA who were extremely unhelpful and unconcerned, they said the dog was not neglected so they could not get involved. I then contacted social services who put me through to several other unhelpful and uninterested people. In the end, myself and a nursing colleague agreed to drive to the patient's house to at least feed and water the dog who, it transpired, had been locked into a bedroom by the paramedics who were not aware there was nobody due in to care for the dog. Luckily, that room was relatively sheltered from the sun but the dog was hungry and dehydrated as well as incredibly anxious. I then felt obliged to call in each evening after work even though it was a long way from where I live and I was not insured to visit a patient's home (even though I had her key with her permission). I felt the RSPCA could at least have given me constructive advice - they kept repeating it was the responsibility of social services even though social services only responded to my call after a further 3 days - rather late with the patient due home the following day. I am not sure how long the dog would have survived locked in one room with no food or water if I had not taken it on myself to intervene.
I do appreciate the rescue work the RSPCA do. I visited a local RSPCA rehoming centre a few years ago after my old cat died with the intention of choosing a cat to adopt. The cats were well cared for. However, I was shortly scheduled for a holiday abroad so I wanted to reserve the cat of my choice and pick her up on my return. This was not possible, I had to take her immediately which I refused to do since I had another cat at home and felt it was not conducive to the integration process to introduce a new cat and then put both back in the RSPCA boarding cattery (this was their suggestion at quite a cost) until my return. I opted for Cats Protection which were much more flexible and accommodating - I ended up taking 2 of their cats.
I agree with all those posters who are fed up with being asked to commit to monthly direct debits. I frequently get accosted by the RSPCA or other charities who refuse my proffered donation - all they want is my direct debit details. I have had bad experiences when I have signed up (not with the RSPCA) because I get inundated with requests to increase my monthly sum and deluged with heartrending sob stories. I have now cancelled all my charity direct debits because I was so fed up with being asked for more and more (I have 3 of my own cats to feed, insure etc, plus my pond fish - my spare money should be spent on them).
Maybe that's why some people think they're some sort of emergency service.