Love them or hate them we need the RSPCA

RSPCA should aim to go back to basics.

The RSPCA are in the process of closing some of their animal shelters, hospitals and clinics and allegedly making at least ten percent of their administration and front line staff redundant according to Society statements and media reports. This has obviously caused alarm and distress to their staff and several Change.org petitions have been started which are already attracting many signatures. It could be viewed as a knee jerk reaction to the present financial climate caused by the pandemic, but it could be just an opportune time to restructure the charity once again.

We seem to have a love hate relationship with the RSPCA, as many do with the Police, and there will always be sections of society and organisations happy to criticise and who want to reign them in but in the interests of all the abused animals of England and Wales we cannot do without them. This is because they are the only agency or charity actively trying to prevent abuse before it happens and taking 0ver 90% of all animal cruelty prosecutions.

RSPCA have always been evolving and restructuring

The RSPCA throughout its history, and particularly in the last fifty years, has always adapted to changing society needs, circumstances and attitudes whether financial or not. I have been involved with the Society on and off since 1970 and have seen it all before. Back then there was only one hospital and that was a converted house, the only animal shelters within striking distance of London were the Mayhew Home and Southall cattery.

At the end of the sixties the Society still owned hundreds of houses in which their inspectors lived, answered their own phones, organised there own day, were part of the community, had kennels and cages in the back garden to temporarily hold animals and were virtually on 24 hour call. Then to meet financial and changing society needs they were all sold, call centres were introduced and the inspectorate was regionalised.

Throughout the seventies they closed dozens of “one man clinics” in the poorer areas of London like the east end, south and north London or like the Mayhew Home transferred them to other charities. They closed their central night emergency service to much outcry that had provided vital rescue and treatment services during the city’s impoverished decades. Even their grand headquarters building in Jermyn Street was closed, sold and demolished when the Society relocated to the countryside.

In the next few decades they continued to adapt their services introducing animal collection drivers and animal welfare officers to take some of the workload off inspectors. The Society and its Branch animal shelters took fewer unwanted pets from owners and concentrated on homing those animals seized or collected by their staff. The Society has always changed to meet present demands.

The RSPCA sometimes loses sight of its roots

Along the way no doubt the Society has made mistakes particularly when they have lost sight of their roots and core objectives and insisted on establishing a department for everything connected with animal welfare rather than concentrating on what they do best. It seems they are beginning to realise this and are leaving certain aspects to the dozens of other charities who carry out similar work such as the Cats Protection and Dogs Trust who rehome animals and those that treat animals of the poor like the PDSA and Blue Cross. The RSPCA fulfills a unique and important role that no other charity dares to get involved in and that is protecting and preventing animals from ill-treatment and they must concentrate on this.

It is always terrible for people to lose their livelihood and the work they thoroughly enjoy and believe in but unfortunately times and circumstances change. But hopefully the Society will in the future avoid decreasing their front line activities as without adequate services more animals will undoubtedly suffer. They have always managed to survive controversy, criticism, upturns and downturns and they hopefully they will continue to do so because there are so many animals out there that depend on them.

Related Articles:


Finn’s Law. Do police horses have enough protection

The scenes at the Black Lives Matter protest in London of a police horse bolting riderless down Whitehall past the Cenotaph in terror while others came under attack with bicycles, flares, fireworks and other missiles was quite a poignant reminder of the war horses, and raises the question of whether they have enough protection under Finn’s law. Conservative MP Andrew Griffith thankfully responded to the issue by asking this question of Priti Patel in the House of Commons on Monday 8th. June, 2020:

“I am proud that it was a Conservative Government who introduced Finn’s law to protect our service animals. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that she will not rest until the minority of thugs involved in attacking the police horse, as well as, of course, our brave officers, are brought to justice?”

In response the Secretary of State for the Home Department said:

“My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What we witnessed at the weekend was utterly despicable. I look forward to visiting the mounted police section quite soon. I have had it with authority from the Metropolitan Police Commissioner that the injuries to the horse were mild, but importantly, she highlighted yet again how the acts of thuggery are disproportionate to not just police officers, but the animals”.

Finn’s Law named after stabbed police dog.

Coincidentally Finn’s Law or as it is formally named The Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Bill came into force exactly a year to the day these incidents occurred. It was named after a German Shepherd Dog that was stabbed chasing an offender and is designed to protect service animals. It was heralded as the answer to protect them but cannot be effective unless it is enforced stringently and greatly publicised to make possible offenders aware of the protection these animals have and the consequences of injuring them.

But there is also a great need for police horses and dogs to be treated in the same way as the officers when it comes to health and safety assessments of their use in each specific operation or situation. Obviously the real answer is not to use them in the first place. In this instance it did not seem sensible or safe for them to be utilised in a charge of the light brigade type onslaught in wet weather conditions to frighten and push a mob from the streets. I am surprised that horse charities and the RSPCA are not more vociferous over this issue. The incident received press coverage across the world which is not a particularly good UK animal welfare image.

Related articles: