Scandal
Once again the RSPCA is found wanting.Their cynical use of targetting donors is totally unacceptable, leading to a fine ( paid from donations no doubt)> This organidsation is not a charity but a big business using the most unsavoury tactics of spiv outfits.
Time for it to be stripped of its charity status.Unless the whole management team resigns or is kicked out no longer will they deserve any public support.
Comments
-
I agree about their funding practises, the British Heart Foundation is also guilty of this. But it doesnt detract from the excellent work that both organisations do. The RSPCA does great work pursuing and proscecuting people who abuse animals both pets and
Wild Animals.And the British Heart Foudation do great work helping folk (like me) who needed a new heart valve. Both should keep their charitable status but need to be careful who they employ in their fund raising departments.Not everyone who works for charities
are angels, i suspect fund raising is advised by outside companies.0 -
Good post raysj.These two charities were "investigated" by a well known newpaper, previously investigated itself for hacking (and the editor owns a sporting estate in Scotland.) If the charities concerned tighten up their procedures it will give everyone
more confidence and their good works will continue.0 -
Very sensible post, ray. On local west country news only tonight, a successful prosecution brought by the RSPCA against a group of 11 men guilty of the most awful mistreatment of wild animals, including trapping a vixen in a cage and allowing dogs in to
rip the poor thing to bits. Truly horrific. Without the RSPCA bringing the case, nothing would probably have been done to stop it.Yes, charities, all charities, should focus on their fundraising methods with great care, but I don't think it automatically follows that there is any case for stripping them of charitable status.
0 -
I saw it as well, Moulesy. It's hard to imagine prosecution being brought by another body and all credit to the undercover operative for what she did.
I suspect many charities outsource their collections to other companies - just look at the many similar ads on TV - and that could be where things are going wrong.
Apparently the fines of £25k - RSPCA, and £18k - BHF, would have been much greater if they weren't charities. It was recognised that the fines would need to be paid from donations.
0 -
I saw it as well, Moulesy. It's hard to imagine prosecution being brought by another body and all credit to the undercover operative for what she did.
I suspect many charities outsource their collections to other companies - just look at the many similar ads on TV - and that could be where things are going wrong.
Apparently the fines of £25k - RSPCA, and £18k - BHF, would have been much greater if they weren't charities. It was recognised that the fines would need to be paid from donations.
It would have been 10 times as much. But why does the money have to come from donations, surely it should be paid by those that sanctioned the actions from their own pockets .
0 -
Last night's horrific cruelty case involving wild animals and dogs shows how much we need these charities, both for our own welfare and the world around us. I hope a benefactor will pay the fines or the outside companies involved? Thankfully those involved in the terrible cruelty case have had to pay the costs.
I would also add that my father died from a heart problem that advanced research would now have cured. The work of so many charities is vital.
0 -
I was also very greatful and glad for the treatment I recieved after cardiac surgery. I attended a British Heart Foundation centre for twelve weeks with a doctor there every time. But last week we had a cold caller on our door step at 8pm from the RSPCA
that I told we do not donate anything on the door step.0 -
And where does the £25k - RSPCA, and £18k - BH fines go ?
0 -
Mypoint is these so called organisatiions like many others are no longer charirties" but big businesses run mainly for the benefit of the highly paid staff. How much actual income is spent on"administration" and how much on actual good work
0 -
Read a report recently that said 60% of all funds raised by large charities went on administration, that's disgraceful. I only give to charities after checking their annual accounts and the charity commission website.
Most of my charity giving goes to our local scout, no salaries to be paid as money stays within the group for the benefit of the children
0 -
To a certain degree there is confusion about the status of the RSPCA as a charity and its apparent public spirited prosecution of offenders accused of cruelty.
As I recall it, the RSPCA is required by statute to act as the prosecuting body in such cases, and it is therefore important not to regard such undertakings as them acting in a charitable way. The Police could not take the prosecution even if they were capable of it, they would have to pass it to the RSPCA. So how does this fit with the charitable status?
IMHO it would probably create a more accurate picture of the RSPCA's charitable activities, if the required investigation and prosecution of persons of thought to be guilty of animal cruelty were separated from the charitable activities altogether.
TF
0 -
Prosecution of persons accused of animal cruelty is the RSPCA fullfilling their remit, thats WHY many of us supporters actually support them monetarily. The Police are overstretched these days to be doing it. Our local Wildlife Crime officer was re-asigned, so there is no-one else. I dont agree with some of their fund raising practises, but the work of their officers on the ground is first class, and deserves support.
I get annoyed with the media knocking their good work, when they are doing exactly what their supporters require of them.
Their Charitable status was granted by Royal warrant, hence Royal Society of Protection of Cruelty to Animals.
0 -
Sorry rayjsj, but I think that you are slightly missing my point.
Firstly let me say that I entirely agree with, - and support your view on the superb work carried out by the RSPCA on the ground. Their Royal warrant is entirely justified in that respect alone!
My point was that there is a danger that the exemplary work of the RSPCA in preventing and detecting animal cruelty, might be detracted from, by their statutory duty to act as prosecutor in such cases.
My sole reason for raising the question was because I am a supporter of the charity NOT one of its detractors.
TF
0 -
I think that some of these charities are caught between a rock and a hard place.
They clearly have to raise funds in order to exist. But fund-raising is a very labour intensive activity - not everyone wants to stand on the street rattling a tin and that probably isn't the most effective way anyway.
So they approach (or are approached by) organisations that will do the fund-raising for them. These organisations usually guarantee a minimum return for the amount they are paid - so that the charity doesn't end up paying out more in fees than it collects.
These organisations also have their own costs and they tend to be rather 'aggressive' in making sure that they hit their targets. These are the sort of campaigns that then (rightly) come in for criticism.
I agree that some people at the top of charity organisations are doing very nicely for themselves (just as in businesses) and this just does not feel right.
I also agree that the RSPCA do some excellent work - and who else would do it?
There has to be a balance here and sometimes the balance tips the wrong way.......as so often happens when money is involved.
0
