Isn’t It Time We Stripped Away Their Charitable Status?

I mean, if this isn’t political lobbying against the government, what is?

The RSPCA has called for ‘badger-friendly’ labels on milk and yogurt so consumers can choose dairy products that do not come from farms taking part in the controversial badger cull.

Funny, I don’t recall the RSPCA being so very dead set against other culls. I don’t remember them having such angst over the methods used, either.

Maybe that was because the government of the day was giving them all they required, and so they didn’t want to rock the boat?

He said the labels could be displayed on dairy products that are guaranteed not to be from farms where the cull is being carried out.

The label would work in the same way that ‘dolphin friendly’ tuna guarantees the meat is not from fisheries where dolphins are killed in the nets alongside tuna.

“Milk drinkers may wish to support [farmers not taking part in the cull] and reject the produce of [those that do]. Retailers and producers should make ‘badger friendly’ milk and meat available as they do ‘dolphin friendly’ tuna,” he said in a letter to the Daily Telegraph.

And do ‘milk drinkers’ wish to support it?

Campaigners have been calling for a petition for badger-friendly milk labels at 38 Degrees but so far only gained 8 votes.

I guess we know the answer to that, then.

And I’d like to know the answer to when a ‘charity’ stops being a true charity, and becomes a partisan political lobbying organisation.

18 comments for “Isn’t It Time We Stripped Away Their Charitable Status?

  1. ivan
    September 28, 2012 at 10:30 am

    And I’d like to know the answer to when a ‘charity’ stops being a true charity, and becomes a partisan political lobbying organisation.

    The simple answer, the moment they accept money from the state and that should also be the trigger that removes their charity status.

    • September 28, 2012 at 3:25 pm

      With the RSPCA it is more the other way round; they are the holding tank for wannabes and the comfy retirement billet for obliging MPs. The RSPCA funded the Labour Party in return for the Animal Welfare Act.

      Astonishingly well-funded by the fond and foolish in our society, the RSPCA is second only to Guide Dogs for the Blind in the ‘rolling in money’ stakes. That money buys it political influence.

      It should not be allowed to be a charity. If people want to fund an Animal Party, that’s up to them, but they shouldn’t get special tax breaks to do it.

  2. LJH
    September 28, 2012 at 11:31 am

    Perhaps milk from the culling areas should be labelled ” cow friendly”?

    • September 29, 2012 at 7:00 am

      What a great idea! 🙂

  3. Robert Edwards
    September 28, 2012 at 12:18 pm

    You will like this anecdote, Julia:

    Many years ago, after the vile Jackie Ballard was ejected from our local Parliamentary seat, she went on to become Commissar of the RSPCA. I was chatting with a cabbie on the way back from the station and the subject of the recent election (this must have been 2001) arose:

    “I had that Jackie Ballard riding in the back of the cab, once; she stank like a fucking badger. I told the dispatcher I’d never pick her up again…”

    Is there, perchance, some connection?

    The RSPCA is not a charity. It used to be, before it was hi-jacked by steely-eyed and ignorant activists with a huge Statist agenda.

    • September 29, 2012 at 7:00 am

      So many ‘animal lovers’ turn out simply to be people haters instead..

  4. The Jannie
    September 28, 2012 at 12:28 pm

    There are many animal lovers who no longer support them because of exercises like this. That and their unwillingness to turn out unless it’s an easy target and there’s a camera crew handy . . .

  5. john in cheshire
    September 28, 2012 at 12:33 pm

    It would be a better use of the RSPCA’s time if it were to address the increasing use of muslim slaughter of food animals. Despite the efforts over many decades to introduce humane treatment of food animals including how they are killed, muslims seem to be able to completely ignore the law. But no protests as far as I can see from the organisation that one would expect to be in the vanguard of opposing this brutal method of animal killing.

    • Mudplugger
      September 28, 2012 at 4:45 pm

      Agreed, but is must also include Kosher slaughter too. They’re two cheeks of the same spiritually cruel arse.

      • September 28, 2012 at 7:24 pm

        The RSPCA tried to get mandatory stunning included in the Animal Welfare bill. Even with the money they were putting in to Tony Blair at the time, he was well aware that electorally you can’t annoy 2m Muslims, even if you are prepared to annoy a few thousand Jews.

        It’s important to note that exsanguination is how all larger animals (bar field-caught game) are killed. That is because they need to be alive to have the heart help remove the blood from the muscle. This is how we kill animals, it is how we have killed animals for several thousand years, it is not just legally mandated; it is legally required. All that has changed is that there is a possibility of using electrical stunning so they are easier to handle, unaware of their predicament and perhaps the pain of the wound, and the quality of the meat is improved by the electrical relaxation.

        The actual method of killing is the same in each case; cutting the main blood vessels in the neck. Jewish slaughtermen in particular claim that their extreme care with the knife, its sharpness and single-use, and the requirement to calm the animals and not let them know what is coming, all reflect the seriousness with which eating meat is taken. The market price reflects that care. From their point of view, electrical stunning is a quick’n’dirty procedure, a cynical negation of the sacrifice of the animal, for the profit of the packers and to get the meat on to the table at the lowest prices with the least accommodation made to the animal.

        None the less, electrical and captive bolt stunning may offer the advantages to the animal. It certainly does to the meat-packer’s profit margin. Time, after all, is money. Stunned animals can be handled quicker and with less regard to their mental state as they go in to the abbatoir. Whether animal husbandry is cruel is not solely a function of the last two minutes of their lives. Rather, their rearing, feeding and transport over the whole of their lives determine what is cruel.

    • Greg Tingey
      September 29, 2012 at 10:02 am

      They have tried, I understand …
      But ran up against charges of beoing nasty, evil “racists” …
      Rather like the Rochdale (?) cover-up over child abuse …..

  6. Tatty
    September 28, 2012 at 1:25 pm

    I never used to know or care about such things but I do wonder these days whether the RSPCA has ever been a charity in the true sense of the word.

    I recall, in 1995, being utterly gobsmacked at the corruption and hypocrisy when an extended family member…back then “rising up the ranks” of this paramilitary organisation…was given a massively discounted mortgage courtesy of his “employer”.

    Nowadays though, I’d have not even have been a tiny bit surprised at that.

    Whatever they were originally intended to be their intials now stand for Routinely Swerving Prosecutions (for) Cruelty (to) Animals. 😐

    On the subject of those labels though….Since so many people believe that TB is spread from badgers to cattle it could lead to a massive drop in sales and profits. Disincentives don’t get much better than that .

  7. September 28, 2012 at 3:19 pm

    I haven’t even read the post yet. I’d just like to strongly endorse the headline. Yes, yes, yes.

  8. Matt
    September 28, 2012 at 11:32 pm

    How I hate this fake charity. It riles me exceedingly that they swan around in their deliberately misleading fake police uniforms calling themselves officers and inspectors and chief superintendents.
    They are just single issue fanatic members of the public and control freaks.

  9. Greg Tingey
    September 29, 2012 at 10:03 am

    Interesting point though.
    Krebs, the chief scientist has said that the badger cull makes no sense, & what is needed is vaccination.
    Also, no-one seems to notice that DEER can carry TB.
    Why is this kept quiet?

    It isn’t the “dear cuddly badgers”, it’s that the cull is the wrong solution to the wrong problem.

    • September 29, 2012 at 12:02 pm

      If you look at how the RSPCA manipulates emotion, it becomes clear why a well-funded pressure group is not saying this. There are no donations in being calm and rational.

  10. Furor Teutonicus
    September 29, 2012 at 12:56 pm

    XX He said the labels could be displayed on dairy products that are guaranteed not to be from farms where the cull is being carried out.XX

    Good! then we know which milk to buy to give suport against these communist badger-fuckers, don’t we?

    Can we have ALL food with such labels? I mean “Produced using only Dolphin friendly rabbits”, sod them! Go for the one with “I LOVE eating bastard dolphins for breakfast!”

  11. Maaarrghk!
    October 1, 2012 at 7:28 am

    Although the Grumpy Old Sod has parked his website for the time being, it is still accessible and there are some VERY revealing articles about the rspca on there for those who wish to take a peak.

    A particularly disturbing case was that of a couple who had their child taken away for forced adoption after it was found that the Father, who ran a dog breeding business had docked a couple of pups tails.

Comments are closed.