Respect the RSPCA
Sir: You ask whether the RSPCA has ‘gone feral’ (‘The RSPCA’s secret war’, 2 February)? The answer is ‘no’. Since its founding, the society has promoted kindness to and respect for animals. We have done so through education, good science and campaigns to change the law to protect animals from cruelty. But laws only count if they are effectively enforced. Some of your readers may assert that the police should do this work. On many occasions they do so, often working closely with our trained inspectorate. However, operational realities and pressure on police resources mean that human welfare tends to rank higher than that of animals. Should those acting cruelly to animals ‘get away with it’? Our answer and that of the public is ‘no’.
Others may say our scarce resources should not be spent on prosecutions (we spend less than 5p in every pound on legal costs) and it should be left to the Crown Prosecution Service. The CPS acts solely on police cases and not those of private individuals or organisations. That said, in England and Wales, any magistrate, judge or defence counsel who believes a private prosecution to be ill founded or ‘politically motivated’ may refer it to the CPS. From time to time that has happened to the RSPCA, although — tellingly — not in the Heythrop Hunt case. On every occasion we have been found to have acted entirely appropriately.
The RSPCA was established to be the voice of our fellow creatures and to act for them. In a world of irresponsible pet ownership, insidious trade in exotic creatures, institutionalised farming and abuse of wildlife, we will continue to do so by all lawful means.
Gavin Grant
Chief executive, RSPCA, West Sussex
Adding insult to injury
Sir: Before Rod Liddle lays down the law on fox hunting (2 February), he should be sure it really is the law. As a lawyer, I can tell him he has got it wrong. He says that the RSPCA case was a ‘state prosecution’ when it was actually a private prosecution. He says the RSPCA is ‘charged’ with the task of defending the law and compiling evidence. It isn’t. He says (on no evidence) that the legislation banning fox hunting was ‘not motivated by social or political spite’. No one thinks that is true. He is ignorant of the fact that Crown prosecutors are not allowed to bring a case unless it is in the public interest to do so. Scandalously, private prosecutors like the RSPCA are under no such restriction. Many apart from me must wonder why you pay this man to insult respectable readers by rudely calling them bone-headed psychopaths.
Francis Bennion
Devon
Sir: Well done, Rod Liddle, for so compellingly advocating upholding the law, particularly with regard to fox hunting. Unfortunately, there are still areas where the law is not consistently upheld. For example, I have it on good authority that there are many people in this country, some of whom wear pink jackets, who consume marijuana with impunity. Is enough being done to put an end to this? After all, this country has a strong tradition of enforcing the law — recall the persecution of suffragettes and homosexuals.
Jan Kwiatkowski
Dorset
View across the Channel
Sir: I found Patrick Marnham’s excellent analysis of President Hollande’s folly uplifting (‘Hollande runs into the sand’, 2 February). It is good to know that some British publications can see past Westminster, through the Channel fog, and focus on what’s happening in French politics. One detail from British politics, though, is worth adding: the relationship between Ed Miliband and Hollande. When Hollande was elected, Miliband seemed eager to fasten his political brand on to Hollande’s, and vice versa. We then heard commentators talking about a European centre-left revival. But since Hollande’s statist muddling has so spectacularly failed — both economically and politically — Ed appears eager to distance himself from his socialist ally.
Michel Bellando
Birmingham
The Mali fight
Sir: It is depressing that, as James Forsyth notes (Politics, 2 February), David Cameron is more and more enamoured with the idea of foreign intervention. He may be sincere in his determination to combat the threat of Islamic terrorists in the Maghreb, but he doesn’t appear determined enough to think through the possible consequences of his sorties into North Africa. ‘He still regards the Libyan operation as a success,’ reports Mr Forsyth, and that confidence drives him into the Mali fight. But everybody knows that the instability in Mali is in large part a indirect result of the West’s Libyan action. Why can’t the Prime Minister see that, too? Or does he just feel a vague George W. Bush-like desire to ‘finish the job’?
Anthony Caw
London W14
Inept response
Sir: Theodore Dalrymple and Chris Miller are so right (‘Get out of jail free’, 26 January). Chris Grayling’s response (Letters, 2 February) typifies the weakness and ineptitude that criminals thrive upon.
David Mitchell
Brecon
Looking backwards
Sir: Many 19th-century writers were thrilled by the railways, as Emily Rhodes noted in her delightful ‘By the Book’ column (2 February). But almost all of them, from Hazlitt to George Eliot, wrote with much greater affection about the old stagecoaches. Perhaps that was nostalgia. But I doubt the present rail service between London and Birmingham will be remembered with anything like as much fondness.
Robin Peters
Nottingham
Comments