Congratulations to the new inspectors graduating today

Sadly this is also the day HQ have announced that there are likely to be at least 130 redundancies of support and admin staff.

Admin staff don't get much appreciation, but the work they do does matter because they are the people who ensure that payments get sent on time, repairs get done and phones are answered. They are the links who keep the wheels turning and if they drop beyond a critical level those wheels will begin to drop off.

Updates from the "Tweetathon"

The team aimed to Tweet about 10% of the incidents coming in to RSPCA National Control Centre over a 24 hour period.

Most of the messages are all capitals because this was done by simply copy/pasting from the NCC computer's outgoing feed of incident details (the information which they send out to the field staff for action on the ground).

This is possible because the control centre staff have to summarise the gist of each problem in a few sentences. By serendipity this means the rather elderly Control Centre IT system is an ideal source of Twitter status updates even though social media hadn't been invented when it was first set up.

RSPCA 24/7 Tweetathon

I've moved up the widget that displays RSPCA_Frontline's twitter feed so that it's more easily visible. Tony Woodley is aiming to display a selection of the incidents reported to the RSPCA National Control centre over a 24 hour period.

The codes E, NE, SE etc. indicate which of the RSPCA regions is the location of the incident.

Please don't forget that many incidents will result in the relevant local branch being asked to provide support in terms of veterinary treatment or care until an animal can be placed in a permanent new home.

You can donate to our branch (RSPCA Cambridge) using text messages on your mobile phone. Simply text the message PETS00 £10 to 70070 to donate £10 to RSPCA Cambridge. Your phone provider will add £10 to your bill and send £10 to our bank account. If you are a UK taxpayer and you complete the gift aid options we will receive an additional £2.80 at no cost to you. 

Inspectorate group reports for 2010

Fox cub stuck in netting

I've just this morning received the inspectorate report for the Cambridgeshire branches group.

E2 ANNUAL REPORT 2010

CASES OF INTEREST

Three men from Peterborough were banned from keeping horses for 5 years after 5 horses they owned were found living on land deemed unsuitable, poor feed and no water made available. Two of the horses were emaciated. The RSPCA arranged care and treatment for the horses and are still looking to secure them good homes.

A man from Cambridge was banned from keeping all animals for 10 years for causing his dog suffering by failing to feed it properly. It was found in an emaciated state. He was also ordered to pay the society costs of £600 and ordered to complete 40 hours community service. Unfortunately due to the dogs condition and prognosis being poor the veterinary surgeon euthanased the dog on humane grounds.

RESCUE OF INTEREST

A collapsed pony was discovered on a bridle path in Peterborough. The pony was suffering from severe arthritis. The RSPCA cared for the pony and as no owner was ever found the pony was eventually rehomed.

Statistics for 2010

The "Collections" heading refers to situations other than cruelty cases where frontline staff were asked to attend sick or injured animals. These would normally be injured strays or wild animals which the person calling the RSPCA was not able to take direct to a vet. 

The majority of the cruelty complaints can be resolved by giving suitable advice on correct care. This is where the branch facilities are very important as it is often the case that very low income pet owners don't obtain veterinary help because they are afraid of the cost. Our inspectors can deal with many neglect complaints by telling the owner that they must take the animal to our clinic and checking later that our records show that this did happen and that the animal's condition was treated.

E2 statistics for 2010
Complaints dealt with	4549
Case files submitted	30
Convictions secured	12
Adult written cautions	10
No proceedings	8
Collections	5446

Sheep rescue in Caernarfon, North Wales

RSPCA inspectors abseil down a cliff to reach a sheep trapped on a ledge.

Not suitable for anyone who doesn't like heights!

Follow the RSPCA Control Centre online today

From 9 am until 5 pm today the RSPCA's National Control Centre tasking system will be shadowed on Twitter, with every incident allocated to frontline staff being "tweeted" online. You can view the calls by following @RSPCA_Frontline on Twitter (or just click the link to see all the calls so far).

On average someone in England and Wales calls the RSPCA’s cruelty line on 0300 1234 999 every 30 seconds. The National Control Centre received more than 1.25 million phone calls last year and responds to around 1,000 incidents a day. (This is in addition to calls made to the individual branches).

Inspector Tony Woodley, communications and liaison officer for the RSPCA inspectorate, set up the RSPCA_Frontline Twitter feed as he wanted to publicise the work of the RSPCA’s 288 inspectors, 119 animal welfare officers and 74 animal collection officers. 

The idea of using Twitter to give readers a realistic impression of the sheer scale of workload coming in was first thought of by Greater Manchester Police.


I hope the exercise will go some way towards combatting the attitude that, if the RSPCA doesn't succeed in solving all calls to deal with animal related problems, the right thing to do is to hammer us by reducing donations until we can't deal with any of them.


Please also remember that, although the frontline staff deal with the immediate incidents, they depend on us, the branches, to provide subsequent continuing care. It's also essential that branch services are available for those callers who just need to be directed to a source of low-cost veterinary help.


If you would like to make a donation towards the continuing work of RSPCA Cambridge, please follow the link to our page on the JustGiving fundraising site.

Whitehaven news report of Cumbria rescue

Pictures of the RSPCA water rescue team working in Cumbria in the Whitehaven News illustrate just how physical the work of the inspectors and animal welfare officers is.

Some people might think all of the rescue effort should be concentrated on helping human beings, but by providing trained people who know enough not to become casualties themselves they're making it less likely that pet owners will try to return to retrieve their animals and need to be rescued by the emergency services.

Building bridges with other charities?

There's a discussion on Petstreet about one member's experiences after winning a day shadowing an RSPCA Inspector. Also, see her fuller diary of the day. It's very interesting to see how we appear from "outside", in particular how difficult it is for other people to understand how the RSPCA's somewhat chaotic structure grew as the result of the decisions of local branches over a timespan of more than a century.

In our case we have a clinic, but no animal home purely because the branch committee of 50 years ago identified a welfare need for low cost pet care and negotiated a deal with Cambridge University to get cut-price treatments in return of use of the clinic for training new vets.

In the case of Stubbington Ark in Hampshire, the branch committee presumably decided they wanted a shelter and raised funds for one. HQ animal homes tend to be more strategically placed in that HQ will realise that there´s a problem with finding placements for animals in a particular region and build a home to fill that need.

Cambridge branch uses a combination of care at private boarding kennels, fostering by individuals and transfers to Block Fen which is our closest HQ funded shelter. The advantage of using private kennels is that (if we have the money!) we can increase the number of available spaces "overnight" rather than having a building with fixed limits. The disadvantage is that private kennels are not usually geared towards rehabilitating animals with behaviour problems etc.

Where there's a long-established HQ run home there is a tendency for the local branch to wither away because all the public interest — donations, volunteers etc. — tends to come to the home rather than the branch. In the long run that tends to mean that the branch can't afford to supplement the places provided by the home with fostering or spaces in boarding kennels. I suspect that having an active branch also improves relationships with other charities because they're more likely to meet us day to day. I certainly don´t get the degree of antagonism the Maidstone inspector seemed to find and we regularly come to arrangements with the local ferret rescue, Cats Protection, Blue Cross etc. if we have facilities & they don't or vice versa.

I´m afraid at the end it does come down to money. We've never yet been in a position where we were telling our inspectors to put down healthy animals, but a year ago we were very close to the point where we'd have had to. This is why it's so vital that we make a success of our new shop.

Comparison

Some figures from the Home Office performance report on Cambridgeshire police make an interesting comparison:

* Police Officers: 1,379
* Police Staff: 892
* Community Support Officers: 197
* Other Staff: 25
* Special Constables: 210

Budget 2007/08: £116.0 million

Cambridgeshire alone has an annual income that roughly matches the resources the RSPCA has to fund all its national services (Inspectorate, animal homes, campaigns, scientific etc.). Next time you hear that someone phoned the RSPCA and "no-one was available to come out that day," please remember those figures. It isn't that "no-one cares".

RSPCA Prosecutions

I came across the RSPCA's evidence to the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs' inquiry into the draft Animal Welfare Bill and I think it's worth quoting some of the detailed explanation of how the RSPCA Inspectorate and the Prosecutions Department go about investigating cruelty complaints. 

The passage into law of the Animal Welfare Act doesn't significantly change the way this works, although it has made it possible to intervene earlier where animals are being kept in unsuitable conditions. The transcript of the oral evidence puts it into one huge paragraph, so I've spaced it out to make it a bit more readable. 

If you page through the whole of the original source, you'll see some explanation of the Society's branch structure in relation to the Inspectorate (scroll down to find it), and some statistics on conviction rates which are relevant to the File on 4 allegations:

Mr Flower (RSPCA Superintendant Prosecutions dept.): Yes. All of the prosecutions launched by the RSPCA are as a private prosecutor. If the Bill becomes law that position will not change. We will still be a private prosecutor. You are probably aware that, although the Crown Prosecution Service was set up in 1985, the law specifically provided and allowed the preservation of the rights for private prosecutions to continue, and we are a private prosecutor. 

The way our inspectors work at the moment to bring about private prosecutions is this: generally we receive a large number of complaints alleging the cruel treatments of animals from the public—last year it was in the region of 105,000. 

Our inspectors investigate all of those complaints; they check on the welfare of the animals; they try and determine whether an offence may have been committed. In investigating complaints our inspectors require the co-operation of animal owners because the RSPCA inspectors have no statutory powers, so if an inspector wants to see an animal he is invited into the premises by the owner. 

If the inspector believes that an offence may have been committed because he is confronted with an animal in a very poor condition, then he will strive to take the animal to a veterinary surgeon for examination because we rely on the veterinary surgeon to provide evidence that the animal has been caused to suffer. 

If an owner is not co-operative and will not allow an inspector access or the removal of an animal, then we are obliged to enlist the assistance of the police, because the police do have certain powers under current law in relation to arrest and seizure of items of evidence, but we only need to call on the police in very limited circumstances. 

If the inspector then has evidence that there is a potential offence and the opinion of the veterinary surgeon is that the animal has suffered, the inspector will then proceed to investigate with a view to compiling a file of evidence. This will comprise witness statements, expert evidence, photographs, and the owner of the animal will be given the opportunity to be interviewed. 

The interview is conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, so the accused is cautioned and advised that they have the opportunity to seek legal advice before speaking. They are also told that they have the opportunity to have their animal examined by a veterinary surgeon of their choice in order that they have the opportunity to have an alternative opinion on the state of the animal. This is all done partly to comply with statutory provision, and partly to be fair to the accused. 

Once the investigation is completed the file of evidence is sent to the Prosecutions Department. There are five staff there who assess all of the cases that arise in England and Wales. The Prosecutions Department adheres to the provisions of the code for crown prosecutors when assessing the file of evidence. There are two principal tests, as you probably know. 

One is that there must be sufficient evidence to make a conviction more likely than an acquittal if the case is prosecuted, and there must also be a public interest in prosecuting, and all of the decisions that the RSPCA makes with regard to prosecution are based on those criteria. 

Although we are probably one of the biggest private prosecutors, prosecution is a very small part of our inspectorate's work. I mentioned that last year inspectors investigated about 105,000 complaints. The number of cases submitted to Prosecutions Department was about 1,400. Of that 1,400 we prosecuted about 700-800—about 50%, so I think this demonstrates that we are not, as some people may suggest, just out to secure convictions at all cost. 

We assess cases carefully and we apply the appropriate tests before we prosecute. That is why our prosecution numbers are so low. Although we are careful with our prosecutions, we do have a very high success rate. Last year the number of convictions we secured from our prosecutions was about 96% which is a significant success rate. 

I believe another criticism that may have been levelled is the fact that there is no form of accountability as far as our prosecutions are concerned. I think the example was cited that the police investigate offences but the Crown Prosecution Service decides whether to proceed and that is some sort of safeguard, but the position of the RSPCA is no different from any other non police prosecutor. There are plenty of them, from British Rail to British Waterways, TV licensing and local authorities will occasionally prosecute, but the CPS do not have responsibility for assessing cases brought by non police prosecutors. 

If a suggestion is made that RSPCA cases should go to the CPS to be assessed then that is a misleading suggestion because the CPS does not have the authority to prosecute for anyone other than the police. The position of private prosecutions was considered in 1998 by a Law Commission report and that concluded that there were adequate safeguards in place to ensure the right to bring private prosecution is not abused. Those sort of safeguards include the DPP having a right to intervene [if a prosecution has been brought inappropriately].

Ouch!

This does look sore, although I imagine they selected the most dramatic case they could find to get a good photo. Having seen it, I have a better understanding of the drama surrounding a clinic client whose dog has the condition, and which I hope and trust will very soon be sorted out.

Vaginal prolapse looks very dramatic (which is why the owner's neighbours kept making complaints to us about it in spite of the fact that she had taken the dog to our clinic).

It resolves itself spontaneously between heats (so there's a bit of a tendency for an owner who is very pushed for cash to give a sigh of relief and hope it's gone away naturally).

It can't easily be surgically treated while the bitch is still in heat (the safest treatment is to spay her between seasons and put in some stitches to make sure the remaining vaginal tissue stays put where it ought to be).

Taxi drivers recoil in horror and won't have the bitch in their vehicles (so it's very difficult for a very low-income owner to actually get her to a vet for diagnosis and treatment).

Hardly any vets will do home-visits nowadays. We are extremely lucky that Clarendon St vets in Cambridge and Royston Veterinary Centre will do call-outs in their local area.

Animal Hoarders and others

This is Bearface, who came in from the same original place as Alphina. If you might be interested in adopting them (or any of our other animals), please email rehoming@rspca-cambridge.org.uk

Which leads into the subject of today's post, sparked off by an article on the Disability Now website. Bearface, Alphina and their eight other friends were brought in by our inspector after being signed over to the RSPCA because their previous owner couldn't cope with so many cats any longer. They were all evidently loved and cared for and there was absolutely no question of anyone being prosecuted.

The vast majority of the animals, other than injured strays, that we take in for rehoming fall into variations on the "can no longer cope" category, for a variety of legitimate reasons. Sometimes because people's circumstances have changed; often because a landlord has finally taken exception to the large number of animals being kept, and fairly frequently because the owner has mental or physical problems severe enough to cause them to be placed in some kind of institution for reasons that are not necessarily related to the fact that they have pets.

The most horrific example of this last category that's ever happened in our own area is one where a very elderly couple owned a number of dogs. The husband was suffering from severe dementia and his wife sadly had a heart attack and died with the result that he lived with his wife's remains for several weeks, unable to comprehend the situation enough to call the emergency services or feed the dogs. That clearly wasn't his fault, and the only reason our poor inspector was called in by the police was because they needed someone to deal with the surviving dogs.

When someone is suddenly taken into hospital or prison it is the responsibility of the emergency services to protect their possessions and, in the case of inanimate objects, this is simple to do by making their home secure. It clearly isn't an option to do this with living animals, which is why the police and social services will generally try to get the RSPCA to take them if it seems likely that the owner isn't going to return within a reasonable timespan. It's fairly clear from some of the Internet discussions about the RSPCA that this is sometimes interpreted as us "seizing" the animals, although from our perspective we've done nothing except respond to a request to care for animals who have been (involuntarily) abandoned by their owner.

Which leads on to the comparatively rare situations where animals are seized and their owners prosecuted. First of all, it should be said firmly that the RSPCA doesn't (and is not allowed to) simply take animals away without authorisation from the police and a veterinary surgeon's opinion. Once the animals have been removed they remain the property of the original owner until the owner signs them over to the RSPCA voluntarily or until a court makes an order about their future. This is as is should be - as a voluntary body we ought not to be in a position of being judge, jury and executioner.

The problem in the case of people who have a mental abnormality of some kind and are not willing to give up animals voluntarily is that it means there is no middle way to avoid putting them through the whole process of prosecution, including the inevitable publicity, without simply abandoning the animals to their fate. Rosalind Gregson is an absolutely classic example of someone who had to be stopped from collecting more and more animals and keeping them in abysmal conditions, but who wasn't fully responsible for her actions. Prison clearly wasn't an appropriate punishment for her, but sentencing is the decision of the court, not the RSPCA. Margaret O'Leary is a similar case.

In the States animal hoarding is beginning to be recognised as a specific form of mental illness and convicted people may be given treatment orders rather than punishment. This is clearly better, but I can't see any realistic alternative to the prosecution process unless society decides to go down the road of authorising confiscation of animals and enforced treatment of their owners without a legal oversight (or with something like a judge in chambers instead of open court). Have to say I find the idea a bit chilling - what happens to the "mad cat ladies" of this world who are eccentric but do look after their animals and keep numbers within fairly reasonable limits.

Dogs who bite people

Wondered why: "Saved: knife man who set himself alight" was coming up in my newsfeed of RSPCA items, and found: 

Neighbours said the man had been upset after his bulldog had to be put down the day before.

One, who did not wish to be named, said: "The RSPCA came round and they said that it was attacking people and would have to be destroyed. I think the man was really cross with his mum for having the dog put down."

I doubt whether it happened exactly like that. It may not actually have been the RSPCA at all who called round: usually dog bite incidents are dealt with by the police or local authority dog warden. Certainly, if someone phoned our control centre and complained they'd been bitten, they'd be told to phone the police. 

The true story may well be something similar to a call I took late on Friday evening. The caller's rottweiler dog had just attacked her (adult) son for no apparent reason. He wasn't badly injured, but wanted the  dog out of the house, and was expecting that we'd be able to collect it that evening. Realistically, there's no way we could responsibly take on a large, potentially dangerous dog for rehoming to the public. It had to be their decision either to get professional advice on training or to have the dog put to sleep, and I told them so. 

Further down the line, if one of the other family members had reacted like the man in the knife incident, that could easily have been reported to the Press as: "the RSPCA told them they had to have the dog put down".

Heart sink time

Sometimes things go wrong. Our rehoming co-ordinator and I had a series of increasingly agitated calls over the weekend from family members of an elderly lady whose cat failed to come home on Friday evening. They sent out search parties and a neighbour told them that "an RSPCA van" had taken the cat away.

Our inspectors and ACO's definitely do not spend their lives roaming round Cambridgeshire kidnapping people's cats: someone must have made a call to say that the cat was an ill or injured stray. That wouldn't be a problem - the family themselves were realistic that the cat is very old and someone might think he was a thin stray. What is a problem is that nobody seems to be able to trace where the cat was taken. We (the branch) haven't had a request from an inspector or ACO to take the cat in for boarding and none of the local vets has contacted us to ask for funding for continuing treatment (assuming the cat looked bad enough to see a vet).

What is supposed to happen in these cases is that the paid staff member who collects an injured or sick animal takes it to the closest available vet and arranges for the National RSPCA to be invoiced for initial first aid (usually referred to as IET = Initial Emergency Treatment). Once that's happened, the vet is supposed to phone the local branch (me, in this case) to arrange for us to pay for the cost of continuing treatment and/or transfer to boarding facilities.

It tends to be this final step that breaks down, because each individual vet only deals with RSPCA cases relatively infrequently. So, they tend not to remember what they're intended to do, and vets using their initiative, with all the best intentions, can lead to situations you'd rather not get into. The most common failing is that no-one in the practice contacts anyone (because they assume we'll have been told the cat's been taken to them), with the result that the animal has apparently been "disappeared". Understandably this looks to the owner as if we've either got the cat and are refusing to say where it is; have lost it, or (worst of all), put it to sleep without giving them a chance to claim it.