Split: RSPCA and animal activism

[MetaKron]

**********Moderator Note*************

This thread is a splinter created from posts in the thread Questions about vegans.

i dont know that much about kosher to be honest because im not jewish or islamic.

about all i know is that a cabonara is banned, as is pig and shellfish (this is REAL fish not shell fish BTW) and that the method of killing the animals is cruel and should be outlawed in australia

Australia should take its conservationists and animal rights activists out and shoot them all dead.

 

[James R]

So, you're anti-conservation and anti-animal rights then, I take it, MetaKron?

Why should anybody care what you think, though?

 

[MetaKron]

So, you're anti-conservation and anti-animal rights then, I take it, MetaKron?

Why should anybody care what you think, though?

So you are for animal rights, James? That's a good reason for me never to speak to you again, if you are.

Sorry. What I should have said is that the conservationists and the animal rights activists are screwing Australians around, just like they're screwing everyone they can gain influence over. The animals and humans are better off without them.

 

[Asguard]

actually the RSPCA do a fantastic job concidering they are not a goverment organisation but rather a volenteer one who not only has enforcement powers under the protection of animals acts but also have to go in with the star group officers and the ambulance SOT's when the police are excuting high risk warrents in order to subdue the guard dogs.

They contribute more to our sociaty on a daily basis than you ever will MetaKron

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

. . . . the RSPCA. . . . go in with the star group officers and the ambulance SOT's when the police are executing high risk warrants in order to subdue the guard dogs.

That's cool. Here, the motherfucking arrogant, incompetent, swaggering government thugs just shoot the dogs. They recently busted into the house of the mayor of Berwyn Heights and murdered his dogs, one of which was running away and was shot in the back. It turned out to be a bogus drug bust. The dealers had a shipment delivered to his address, knowing he wouldn't be home and it would be left on his porch, and the recipient was hanging out on the street waiting to see the FedEx truck leave. But the pigs had intercepted the shipment at the other end and were staking out the house so the dealer had to leave the box and split. When the mayor's family got home the goons impersonated a FedEx driver, knocked on the door, and asked his mother to take the package inside. Once she did that they had "probable cause" to break in and arrest everybody and shoot the dogs right in front of them.

And people wonder why we need guns in America. To protect ourselves from the scum of the earth: American cops and other civil "servants," employees of an unaccountable, uncaring government.

They contribute more to our sociaty on a daily basis than you ever will MetaKron

Could you guys please dial it down? Personal insults are a violation of the forum rules. Azzy, you're a fucking Moderator. Can't you please behave like one and not participate in a flame war?

 

[MetaKron]

RSPCA and animal activism

actually the RSPCA do a fantastic job concidering they are not a goverment organisation but rather a volenteer one who not only has enforcement powers under the protection of animals acts but also have to go in with the star group officers and the ambulance SOT's when the police are excuting high risk warrents in order to subdue the guard dogs.

They contribute more to our sociaty on a daily basis than you ever will MetaKron

Most of the RSPCA should be in jail.

They contribute more pain to society on a daily basis than I ever will. More than I am willing to.

 

[James R]

So you are for animal rights, James? That's a good reason for me never to speak to you again, if you are.

You sound like you have an irrational hatred.

What I should have said is that the conservationists and the animal rights activists are screwing Australians around, just like they're screwing everyone they can gain influence over...

How so? Explain.

Most of the RSPCA should be in jail.

Why?

They contribute more pain to society on a daily basis than I ever will. More than I am willing to.

How so? Explain.

 

[MetaKron]

You sound like you have an irrational hatred.

An irrational hatred of people who support terrorists?

How so? Explain.

The so-called conservationists forbid the possession of various species by most humans and mistreat the people who they deign to allow into their select club. This mistreats the animals by denying them their best hope of survival, as pets and livestock.

Why?

Largely, the RSPCA belongs in jail for charities fraud. There is also various misconduct like deliberately and knowingly bearing false witness against animal owners.

How so? Explain.

They have put good owners of animals through emotional wringers, in a criminal manner, and abused them under color of law. They have used the law illicitly by lying to the police and prosecutors, to terrorize and rob people. This abuse has been very malicious and very deliberate. The U.S. has an SPCA that does the same thing to hundreds of people each year.

 

[Asguard]

MetaKron,
why exactly would they lie to police?
the only time they ever deal with the police is when its for there own protection
THEY are the ones with the enforcement powers.

 

[Asguard]

would you like to back that statement up?
where have they lied?
what about?
where is the judement which shows the his\her displeasure with there actions?

or is this just another one of your bigoted campaines like your "i should be able to punch a women in the face" campaine?

 

[MetaKron]

Members of the Inspectorate in senior positions have on various occasions stated in public that they have a cavalier disregard for the law, and the protections that it affords to suspects. On September 3, 1992, Chief Inspector John Paul gave evidence at Richmond-on-Thames Magistrates’ Court in the case of David MacKay. During cross examination, defense barrister Mr Thomas Derbyshire asked the RSPCA man: "Are you telling this court that you encourage your staff to flagrantly disregard civil and legal rights in the pursuit of your ends?" Chief Inspector Paul replied: "My duty is to look after the animals, and if that involves infringing people’s civil or legal rights then so be it. The animals cannot defend themselves so we have to do it for them."

This alone is adequate cause for mass jailings of RSPCA "officials."

Shooting them may also be legally justified where there are laws like "castle doctrine" laws and other laws that allow people to protect themselves from home invaders and terrorists.

 

[MetaKron]

It is a matter of public record that in this case the RSPCA had illegally entered property, and illegally seized animals The recent RSPCA television series Animal Squad – Undercover which appeared on , Channel 4 featured Chief Superintendent Donald Balfour, Head of the RSPCA Special Operations Unit. He was asked on camera by a police officer if he had any legal powers to do what he was proposing to do. His reply was "Officially no, but we do it all the time.

This is exactly what the American SPCAs do. I wish that someone would use a scattergun on them. That is, when legal under the "castle doctrine."

 

[Asguard]

The RSPCA is a charity

correct, but then so are the CFS, SES, and one arm of SAAS amongst other things

The Inspectorate is NOT a public law enforcement body.

WRONG

Society Inspectors have NO special legal powers whatsoever.

WRONG

"the Society" means the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (S.A.) Incorporated;

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/poctaa1985360/s3.html

(1) The Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, appoint a person nominated by the Society to be an inspector for the purposes of this Act.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/poctaa1985360/s28.html

They have NO special powers to arrest offenders.

\

WRONG

PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT 1985 - SECT 29
29—Powers of inspectors


(1) Subject to this section, an inspector may—


(a) at any reasonable time, enter any premises that are—


(i) licensed under this Act; or


(ii) being used by the holder of a licence under this Act for the purposes of an activity for which the holder is required to be licensed under this Act; or


(iii) being used by the holder of an accreditation under the Primary Produce (Food Safety Schemes) Act 2004 for or in connection with meat processing within the meaning of that Act;


(b) at any reasonable time, enter any premises or vehicle that is being used for holding or confining animals that have been herded or collected together for sale, transport or any other commercial purposes;


(c) where the inspector reasonably suspects that an offence has been committed in any premises or vehicle (including any premises or vehicle referred to in paragraph (a) or (b)), enter or break into the premises or stop and detain the vehicle and open or break into any part of the premises or vehicle, or anything in or on the premises or vehicle.


(2) An inspector may, while in or on any premises or vehicle pursuant to this section—


(a) ask questions of any person in the premises or vehicle; and


(b) take copies of, or extracts from, documents or records in the premises or vehicle; and


(c) examine any animal in the premises or vehicle, and where the inspector suspects on reasonable grounds that the animal is suffering unnecessary pain, seize and remove the animal for treatment and care; and


(d) inspect any object in the premises or vehicle; and


(e) where the inspector suspects on reasonable grounds that an offence against this Act has been committed, seize and remove from the premises or vehicle any animal or object that may, in the opinion of the inspector, afford evidence of the offence; and


(f) take photographs, films or video, audio or other recordings; and


(g) require the holder of any licence or permit under this Act to produce that licence or permit for inspection.


(3) An inspector must not exercise the powers conferred by subsection (1)(c) except on the authority of a warrant issued by a justice, unless the inspector believes, on reasonable grounds, that an animal in or on the premises or vehicle is suffering, or is in danger of suffering, unnecessary pain, and that urgent action is required.


(4) A justice must not issue a warrant under subsection (3) unless satisfied, on information given on oath—


(a) that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence against this Act has been committed; and


(b) that a warrant is reasonably required in the circumstances.


(4a) The costs and expenses reasonably incurred by a person or the Crown in seizing, treating or caring for an animal pursuant to subsection (2)(c) may be recovered as a debt from the owner of the animal.


(5) Where an inspector is of the opinion that the condition of an animal is such that an exercise of powers under this subsection is warranted, the inspector may by notice in writing—


(a) direct the owner of the animal to provide it with such food, water, shelter, rest or treatment as the inspector thinks necessary;


(b) require the owner to ensure that the animal is not worked or used for any purpose specified in the notice for such period as is specified in the notice;


(c) require the owner to ensure that the animal is exercised in accordance with the stipulations of the notice.


(6) In the exercise of powers under this Act, an inspector may be accompanied by such persons as may be necessary or desirable in the circumstances.


(7) A person must not hinder or obstruct an inspector, or a person accompanying an inspector, in the exercise by the inspector or the person accompanying the inspector, of the powers conferred by this Act.


Maximum penalty: $1 250.


(8) Subject to subsection (9), a person to whom a question is put under this section must not refuse or fail to answer that question to the best of the knowledge, information or belief of that person.


Maximum penalty: $1 250.


(9) A person is not required to answer a question if the answer would tend towards self-incrimination.


(10) A person given a direction, or of whom a requirement is made, pursuant to this section must not refuse or fail to comply with the direction or requirement.


Maximum penalty: $1 250.



http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/poctaa1985360/s29.html

They have NO right to enter your home to inspect your animals or to demand that you answer any of their questions.

WRONG

They have NO right of access to shows, fairs and markets other than as members of the public, and can only carry out any law enforcement function as an assistant to a police-officer, upon that officer’s request.

WRONG

They have NO power to stop, obstruct or otherwise detain any vehicle carrying animals.

WRONG

Whilst the Society’s staff issue criminal proceedings against offenders, they do so by way of private prosecution.

WRONG

Try again

 

[MetaKron]

Then they probably really should be taken out and shot. No such charity should be allowed any law enforcement powers. They are not a charity anymore if they have those powers. There is too much wrong with them to allow their organization to continue to exist.

 

[MetaKron]

Also, I believe that in all that you quoted, they meant duly appointed officers of the law, not the "Inspectorate" that the RSPCA routinely passes off as law enforcement officers.

Do you support all that crap?

 

[MetaKron]

Hey asshat:

PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT 1985 - SECT 28

28—Inspectors

(1) The Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, appoint a person nominated by the Society to be an inspector for the purposes of this Act.

(2) The Minister must provide each inspector appointed under this section with a certificate of identification in a form approved by the Minister.

(2a) On ceasing to be an inspector, the former inspector must surrender the certificate to the Minister.

Maximum penalty: $2 500.

(3) An inspector must produce the certificate (or, in the case of a member of the police force not in uniform, his or her warrant card) at the request of any person in relation to whom the inspector is exercising powers or functions under this Act.

 

[Asguard]

"(1) The Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, appoint a person nominated by the Society to be an inspector for the purposes of this Act. "

 

[Asguard]

so?

Yes the cops can do the job too, i knew that but in reality, especially for commertial enforcement its the RSPCA inspectors who do it

 

[MetaKron]

"(1) The Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, appoint a person nominated by the Society to be an inspector for the purposes of this Act. "

Which requires that the appointee be appointed by the "Minister" and not by the RSPCA.

 

[MetaKron]

so?

Yes the cops can do the job too, i knew that but in reality, especially for commertial enforcement its the RSPCA inspectors who do it

They should be gunned down for attempting to do it if they do not have proper law enforcement credentials. This is not just because of the castle doctrine but also because they usurp the role of the law enforcement officer.