Scandal

I agree about their funding practises, the British Heart Foundation is also guilty of this. But it doesnt detract from the excellent work that both organisations do. The RSPCA does great work pursuing and proscecuting people who abuse animals both pets and Wild Animals.And the British Heart Foudation do great work helping folk (like me) who needed a new heart valve. Both should keep their charitable status but need to be careful who they employ in their fund raising departments.Not everyone who works for charities are angels, i suspect fund raising is advised by outside companies. 

Good post raysj.These two charities were "investigated" by a well known newpaper,  previously investigated itself for hacking (and the editor owns a sporting estate in Scotland.) If the charities concerned tighten up their procedures it will give everyone more confidence and their good works will continue.

Very sensible post, ray. On local west country news only tonight, a successful prosecution brought by the RSPCA against a group of 11 men guilty of the most awful mistreatment of wild animals, including trapping a vixen in a cage and allowing dogs in to rip the poor thing to bits. Truly horrific. Without the RSPCA bringing the case, nothing would probably have been done to stop it.

Yes, charities, all charities, should focus on their fundraising methods with great care, but I don't think it automatically follows that there is any case for stripping them of charitable status.

I saw it as well, Moulesy. It's hard to imagine prosecution being brought by another body and all credit to the undercover operative for what she did.

I suspect many charities outsource their collections to other companies - just look at the many similar ads on TV - and that could be where things are going wrong.

Apparently the fines of £25k - RSPCA, and £18k - BHF, would have been much greater if they weren't charities. It was recognised that the fines would need to be paid from donations.

I saw it as well, Moulesy. It's hard to imagine prosecution being brought by another body and all credit to the undercover operative for what she did.

I suspect many charities outsource their collections to other companies - just look at the many similar ads on TV - and that could be where things are going wrong.

Apparently the fines of £25k - RSPCA, and £18k - BHF, would have been much greater if they weren't charities. It was recognised that the fines would need to be paid from donations.

 

It would have been 10 times as much. But why does the money have to come from donations, surely it should be paid by those that sanctioned the actions from their own pockets .

Last night's horrific cruelty case involving wild animals and dogs shows how much we need these charities, both for our own welfare and the world around us. I hope a benefactor will pay the fines or the outside companies involved? Thankfully those involved in the terrible cruelty case have had to pay the costs.

I would also add that my father died from a heart problem that advanced research would now have cured. The work of so many charities is vital.

I was also very greatful and glad for the treatment I recieved after cardiac surgery.  I attended a British Heart Foundation centre for twelve weeks with a doctor there every time. But last week we had a cold caller on our door step at 8pm from the RSPCA that I told we do not donate anything on the door step.

And where does the £25k - RSPCA, and £18k - BH fines go ?

I have tried to look this up on the ICO web site but so far can't find what happens to monetary penalties. The ICO is all about data protection.

I  just won't support them, end off