Civilians who claim to work for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals can access criminal records and carry out vehicle checks by making requests to the Association of Chief Police Officers Criminal Records Office (ACRO), which charges the charity for the information.
The relationship between the so called charity Common Purpose, ACPO and the RSPCA is not to be ignored in this context. Sinister Julia Middleton head of Common Purpose in her book encourages “leaders” to act beyond their authority, introducing in my opinion a very dangerous ideology and mindset. As part of their leadership training inducted attendees are encouraged to have a sense of belonging and to form networks of influence.
This excerpt from an RSPCA planning document gives us an indication of the influence of Common Purpose and the spread of its ideology within the RSPCA. Full Document Here
ACPO attendee at Common Purpose organised do in Communist China.
Richard Hamlin, Staff Officer for ACPO President, Association of Chief Police Officers
“Dao Xiang is something you need to experience to fully grasp the importance of it”
Daily Mail –
Grandmother convicted of animal cruelty and made to wear electronic tag… for being too upset to put elderly dog down
When her loyal labrador became old, frail and slow, pensioner Pauline Spoor simply couldn’t bear to have him put down.
Living alone, she relied on the constant companionship of 18-year-old Dexter, who although suffering from severe arthritis and conjunctivitis, would sit quietly by her feet.
The 71-year-old was this week hauled before the courts where, convicted of animal cruelty, she was ordered to wear an electronic tag on her ankle as part of a three-month curfew.Last night, the RSPCA said: ‘We have adopted the same principles as the Crown Prosecution Service and don’t make the decision to prosecute lightly, but in this case we feel it was the right and proper thing to do.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk
What drove RSPCA whistleblower to take her own life?Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/RSPCA – disgusting use of State power to deprive people of their pets. Stop donating.Tory MP Simon Hart, a former head of the Countryside Alliance, claims the RSPCA is pursuing an ‘aggressive political agenda’ against pet owners which is ‘at odds with animal welfare’.Read more: http://the-tap.blogspot.co.uk
Although the number of animal cruelty investigations has fallen in recent years the charity has arguably used these resources much more aggressively. And it’s claimed the taxpayer has footed the RSPCA’s court prosecution legal bills – even when the charity failed to proves its case or the action was withdrawn.
The anti-cruelty organisation agrees to only request information about people it is actively investigating; to treat the data as restricted; and to handle it according to government guidelines – i.e. deleting it when it is no longer needed. In addition, the Leveson inquiry into press ethics published a Police National Computer User Manual [PDF, 618 pages] that specifically states the auditing requirements (paragraph 12.4, page 83) for sensitive information.
So where’s the audit? Who’s checking this? The answer, a series of Freedom of Information requests have established, is “nobody”.
The RSPCA has not been audited by ACRO to establish whether it’s following these obligations. For its part, the RSPCA does not need to disclose what information it uses or how, nor what auditing and training procedures it uses, since it is not a “public authority” under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act. The RSPCA therefore appears to inhabit a legal twilight zone, beyond the reach of scrutiny.
Freedom of Information (FOI) requests have teased out the service-level agreement (SLA) [PDF, 18 pages, easy read] between the police and the charity – as a response to this request [PDF]. It’s lightly redacted (the cost to the RSPCA of police information is blanked) and the FOI requests confirm that ACPO has no record of auditing the charity.
The police are keen to throw a further cloak over its relationship with the animal protectors – as evidenced in this response, where the plod refer to an as-yet unfinished “national protocol” for dealing with the RSPCA.
The Home Office – in response to this [PDF] information request – confirmed it knows nothing about the legal basis of the agreement – while the Information Commissioner has never been challenged on the legality of the arrangement.
A cross-party group of MPs has called for an investigation of the RSPCA by the Charity Commission. ®