
RSPCA Press Office
Dear James,
I’m sure you will not be surprised to learn that the RSPCA has received a complaint following your column dated 21 November.
We were surprised, however, that it was felt appropriate to trivialise and broadcast a criminal act which may well have led to animal suffering.
Can I remind you that whatever your personal ‘sliding scale of values’ may be it remains an offence to fail to meet an animals needs and/or cause it unnecessary suffering? Those found guilty face a maximum six-month prison sentence and/or a £20,000 fine.
Obviously we urge everyone who buys a pet to be sure they have the resources and commitment to care for it for the rest of its life. Should you nevertheless ever find yourself in a similar situation again we would urge you to contact a reputable animal rescue organisation so that your pet has the opportunity to live out its life free from harm.
Regards, Emma Nutbrown
Is this a threatening letter? I think it probably is, don’t you? And if it’s not threatening, it’s definitely creepy, menacing and a little bit sinister. What Ms Nutkin is saying to me here, unless I’m being paranoid, is: ‘We’re on your case, mate. We could have you, easy, for this criminal offence you’ve committed. We could cost you loads of money or put you behind bars. But we won’t this time, because we’re nice that way, we Animal Rights people. Next time, though, you might not be so lucky. Got that, hamster murderer?’
Let me tell you how it started and you can make up your own mind. (Sorry to those of you who’ve already read the original Telegraph article). Two or three years ago, my kids borrowed the official school hamster for the weekend and it got killed by a visiting child in a tragic, wooden-train-related accident.

Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in