Jump to content

Talk:RSPCA/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

If the RSPCA is a non-government charity organization, what gives them the right to do things like going into people's homes and removing animals, whatever the welfare issues involved? Are they exercising some kind of power akin to a citizen's arrest? --81.135.160.27 18:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are exercising powers granted under statute (ie laws of parliament). It should be done by governments but they are too cheap to care so they allow a charity to do thier work for them. Dankru 11:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Protection of Animals Act 1911 does not give the RSPCA the power to arrest or entry or of search. 1 2 --Neocal 20:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, in Australia at least it's actually emplyoees of the local council that enter people's property to remove animals, not the RSPCA. They then take them to the RSPCA. I could be wrong though. I am a lemon 02:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The situation in the UK is that RSPCA Inspectors use powers under animal cruelty legislation, but are well trained to recognise the limitations of their authority. In situations where they are not authorised to act independently (eg gaining entry to premises) they routinely call for police assistance, and simply accompany police officers who are using their powers of entry. This works both ways, as police are often hampered in entering properties because of the presence of potentilly dangerous animals, and they call upon the assistance of RSPCA animal handlers. Sometimes a working arrangement like this is just as good as a specific power under Law. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 02:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Campaigning

[edit]

Some previous supporters have challenged the RSPCA over these campaigns and, in common with many other major charities that also engage in campaigning, question whether such activities represent a proper use even of a tiny proportion of their charitable funds. Such queries come mainly from supporters of "countryside sports".

Im not sure that putting Such queries come mainly from supporters of "countryside sports". is fair. I think a lot of people who donate to the Society are wondering whether their money is better spent on issues such as domestic animal welfare, farming practices and wildlife preservation.

Wildlife preservation such as stopping the badger cull or preventing hare coursing, perhaps? :-) MikeHobday 20:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a ref to the arguments in the media, that would be good. My little sentence, intended only to flag the controversy, was, I agree, a bit too much of a precis though campaigning consumes only a tiny proprotion (quantify??) of their budget. --farsee50 10:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it is true then its worth including, but sources etc would probably help by backing it up. Re Badger Culling - Thats mentioned in the article, and as far as Im aware thats not a countryside sport. --TFoxton 19:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is needed at all, if this has been challenged for many charities then it is an industry element which isn't needed on a specific charity page. Maybe this should be part of the Charity Commission for England and Wales or there should be a UK Charity Page providing details of more recent issues and changes, including the data issues etc. Prob merge with Small Charity Governance iblamedan (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion without comment

[edit]

Hi Mais Oui - good to 'meet' you. I am however, concerned about the total reversion, without explanation, of a reasonable edit, that merely recorded controversy. Please let's discuss. - Ballista 18:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC) P.S. I didn't say to which article I refer - it is the RSPCA article, in case you didn't know.[reply]

P.S. Having received no response, I'm copying this to the relevant 'talk' page, in case you didn't see it. That way, it can become part of 'open' discussion. - Ballista 20:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since no-one has felt the need to respond to this, for about four weeks, it seems appropriate to assume that it was a unilateral action by User:Mais Oui and should be reverted (see the edit of 17.49 on 25th June). I shall leave it a little while longer, to see if there is any response or opinion. - Ballista 09:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you source references for the additions you made? WP:CITE, WP:RS /wangi 09:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I reckon so. Please look at Freedom Food website and Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Report, for the information that supports the assertion that there is dangerous potential for conflict of interest on at least two counts. - Ballista 10:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any feedback on this info? - Ballista 08:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, go for it - add it back, along with the references. Ta/wangi 09:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canada

[edit]

There is no Canadian RSPCA.

The first SPCA in Canada was formed in 1869 in Montreal, three years after Henry Bergh started the first American SPCA, and only 36 years after the formation of the first SPCA in the world, the RSPCA in England. The founders of our country's earliest humane society called it the Canadian SPCA, perhaps dreaming that one day there would be branches across the country. However, the humane movement in Canada did not develop along the same lines as did the British RSPCA. It developed regionally, rather than nationally, and today the CSPCA would be more appropriately named the Montreal SPCA. Similarly in the United States, the American SPCA operates in the city of New York, not the whole country.[1]

I have removed the sentence on there being a Canadian RSPCA. This is not grounded in fact. Ozdaren 02:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article vandalized

[edit]

The admin should really ban that nonerds0. just look at his contrib.Special:Contributions/Nonerds0

Controversy

[edit]

The main problem that people have with the killing of Gangotri the cow is that she was killed despite the fact that she was a pet (rather than raised for slaughter) who was getting veterinary treatment. That is the main point and it is referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.169.33 (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Species

[edit]

What species of animals does the RSPCA actively support? I hear they've not taken anyone to court for over 11 years due to cruelty against pet fish which is odd considering Goldfish is the number one most kept pet in the UK. Surprising when you consider Goldfish live double the number of years than Dogs. --Quatermass (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't true [1], while it maybe true that most carp can live a long life, the quality of parentage and upbringing prior to import to the UK is also a major variable most places which supply them do so by bulk import. danjrose.uk | @iblamedan 15:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Association, Press (2014-08-19). "Man admits animal cruelty after downing four fish in alcoholic cocktail". the Guardian. Retrieved 2018-07-20.

Edits by anonymous user 94.194.101.132

[edit]

Please review the history of this article before wading in! The words in question are certainly not "weasel words". They present a balance of two opposing views, and were inserted due to disagreements between different editors over the meaning of the preceding quote. These words were added to prevent POV, by presenting both sides of the argment over interpretation of the comments of the RSPCA spokesman. We leave the reader to form his own opinion, as is appropriate to an encyclopedia. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 15:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a new controversy

[edit]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/09/court-rspca-will-overturn-daughter The RSPCA lost, but they state they will be appealing. Flatterworld (talk) 02:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting story, but not in any sense relevant to this article. The involvement of the RSPCA is incidental (albeit significant to them as an organisation). The story is actually about a domestic disagreement, and the question of whether or not a man coerced his wife in the writing of their wills. There is no suggestion of coercion on the part of the RSPCA, or any officer of the RSPCA. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 03:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References/'primary sources tag'

[edit]

This article currently has 5 independent references and 11 from the RSPCA itself. It seems natural that information about organizational matters should come from the society itself, though obviously having additional outside refs would be welcome. User:Simple Bob evidently disagrees " sorry, but 9 out of the 15 references are RSPCA. It needs more 3rd party refs" and has twice put a 'primary sources' tag prominently at the head of the article (rather than the references section itself) with the clear inference that it is unreliable. Perhaps he'd like to explain his insistence here? --Kleinzach 23:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

[edit]

That whole section is based on one source which is four years old, thats a bit weak isn't it? Is there any more sources out there especially recent ones about the criticism because at the moment it just seems like one mans old witch hunt.Uksam88 (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Membership

[edit]

Should this article not record the RSPCA membership numbers?

Reason for reverting and making further edits

[edit]

Most of the edits I made in the last 24 hours were undone. I've silently reverted those that were silently undone. As for the two that were undone with accompanying edit summaries, the comments were helpful. I've reverted and improved them in the light of these comments. I think it could still be made better: there are a lot of controversies and maybe they could be further sub-categorised. asnac (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cesar Milan

[edit]

Please see WP:BLPN#Cesar Milan - the Dog Whisperer where a campaign where this organisation was a sponsor is being discussed. Dougweller (talk) 06:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi to whomever it may concern, 

                              I am a student at Central Lancashire and am interested in producing Free Range Eggs as am a lover of animals and in a good motive of giving quality products to people as these days we face lots of medical problems. I just wanted to know if your RSPCA is only for England and Wales or is it possible to approve to other countries...????  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.214.127 (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RSPCA Article

[edit]

This article is highly biased. It reports a long list of negative media stories about the RSPCA but without any attempt to offset these by referring to the many positive stories about the society. The article is unbalanced and gives an inaccurate and incomplete picture. The summary of news articles dominates the article, at the expense of an impartial and informative account of the society and its place in modern society. I am surprised and disappointed that this article has not been heavily edited. It has so obviously been prepared by people with a biased outlook that it reads as anti-RSPCA propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.30.48.6 (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section too long

[edit]

I have tagged this article for neutrality. I have just calculated that the "Criticism and controversy" section accounts for just under 39% of the words in the article, and it mostly focuses on fairly recent news stories. It needs to be trimmed. If I get no replies, I will probably proceed on my own. Anywikiuser (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 October 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals → RSPCA – Per WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:ACRONYM (e.g. NAACP, NATO, etc.) 180.183.209.59 (talk) 00:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:RSPCA/Archive_1&oldid=1242453526"