IN response to Catie Francis (July 18), I am fighting an RSPCA case. I had a litter of puppies that had been ill. They were treated. Following this they again became ill and so I had an appointment made with my vet for a Monday pm. A friend called the R
IN response to Catie Francis (July 18), I am fighting an RSPCA case. I had a litter of puppies that had been ill. They were treated. Following this they again became ill and so I had an appointment made with my vet for a Monday pm. A "friend" called the RSPCA and, although when the RSPCA came my dogs were clean, well cared for and due to see a vet the same day, they still took my puppies,
The RSPCA does pick and choose its victims. I know that there is terrible cruelty and I have reported it to the RSPCA myself, only to be told there is nothing it can do.
Please do not tell me or others like me that the RSPCA's only interest is the animal - it depends on whether or not it can build, bully or manipulate a winning prosecution.
There is a place for a protective body but the RSPCA is no longer that body, the P in RSPCA no longer stands for protection, but prosecution.
VAL WHITEHOUSE, Knighton, Powys
* I WAS sad to read about the dog that suffered because it was not given the necessary care by its owners. Although they may have had financial problems, this is absolutely no excuse for neglect.
I entirely agree with Catie Francis (Letters, July 18). There are lots of sources of help for their problem with the dog, including the RSPCA. They should have phoned their vet for advice or at the very least kept on trying the RSPCA until they had an answer.
The RSPCA acts to protect animals, and an appropriate outcome was reached in this case because they were given a lifetime ban on keeping animals. The couple in the end were not made to suffer financially. This disproves Anne Kasica's allegation against the RSPCA (July 4). We must remember that people have a choice. Animals don't.
LUCIE BLOXHAM, age 15, Skipper Way, Little Paxton
* IN reply to Catie Francis, I agree wholeheartedly with her response to cruelty and neglect to animals. She is not at all old-fashioned.
Why should animals suffer as some do? They need looking after properly and, in my opinion, if you can't afford to or can't be bothered, then don't have any at all.
HAZEL HAWES, THE Fellows, Little Raveley