The horse, pony and donkey welfare disaster in Hyde Heath, Buckinghamshire, during last week, seems to have been a tragedy of massive proportions. That animals could suffer in this way and be exploited, as is alleged, is a terrible indictment of our human disrespect for animals. One assumes the full truth will emerge during legal proceedings. Meanwhile, we can only look on from the outside.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=507061&in_page_id=1770

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7179105.stm

While we all struggle to come to terms with the apparent enormity of it and while the horses, ponies and donkeys that have survived are brought back to health and are hopefully given some reason to respect humankind, there are some questions that should be asked.

Without in any way wishing to take away highly-deserved credit from those heroes and heroines in the field, who are now fighting for these unfortunate animals and who have laboured hard for hours and days to bring the situation under control, we have to ask how the central RSPCA machine is so willing to whip up this media circus and claim credit for a job well done, without also airing the other side of the story.

Why is it that good folk in the tiny village of Hyde Heath had to report suspected problems over several years, before the RSPCA finally acted? Local frustration and anger is running high and clients of the AVMC have given us unsolicited clear accounts of inactivity by the RSPCA, in response to numerous local pleas for help, over the years. This is confirmed in media reports. Accounts of dead horses left lying in fields and horses in very poor condition are recurring themes.

Why is it that the RSPCA can bask in glory, revel in the news coverage and attract a massive, emotionally-driven funding boost, without admitting or explaining their inactivity on many previous occasions? This ‘economy with the truth’ sits very uncomfortably with the image that the RSPCA would like to project. If reports are to be believed, how much obscene suffering could have been prevented, had the Society acted on the first report? One cannot help but feel that the 31 dead animals found there and the rescued animals may have represented but the tip of a ghastly iceberg.

The RSPCA is an extraordinarily wealthy charity, with powers that sometimes exceed those of the police. It has the right to take a statement under oath. It has the right to read people their rights and the right to prosecute. Its staff can be given police-type ranks and wear police-type uniforms. It has new powers vested in it, in the wake of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/welfare/act/index.htm).

Despite all these powers and privileges, it may come as a surprise to learn that there appear to be no controls in place, to oversee the activities of this massive and powerful organisation. It appears that no one puts vital checks and balances in place, to ensure constitutional propriety in the Society’s activities. It appears that the Freedom of Information Act does not apply to the Society’s transactions, as the RSPCA is not listed in Schedule 1 of that Act (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000036_en_10).

It is not apparent that anyone has the power to ensure proportionality in the way the Society operates. Furthermore, there appears to be no one to ensure that the Society properly takes up animal welfare challenges that are brought to its notice (as in this latest seemingly terrible case).

While rejoicing in the fact that this alleged animal atrocity has been brought to an end, let us resolve to ask what is being done to bring this Society under more normal and constitutionally-sound controls.

It is not easy, at first sight, to see to whom to turn with such questions. However, a good place to start may be your MP. Write to your MP now (find your MP: http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/l/) and ask what is being done to rein in this charitable body, which appears to be operating beyond control with animal lovers’ money, under current legislation. Another point of contact would be the Charity Commission (http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/), who should be able to advise whether each and all of the activities of the RSPCA are of a truly ‘charitable’ nature, under charity legislation. See also: http://www.alternativevet.org/rspca.htm.

Wider than this, one has to ask how this man was able to conduct his trade without being found out before. Are there not supposed to be checks on animals in transit in the UK and for export? Is DEFRA content that it has carried out its animal welfare duties correctly? This may be a catalyst finally to close down the iniquitous live export for slaughter trade (http://www.alternativevet.org/live_exports.htm).

Furthermore, those who sell animals into this trade cannot be held blameless (unless of course, it should turn out that all were stolen, which seems unlikely from the news accounts). How did this man acquire his unfortunate animals?

It is not sufficient to treat this catastrophe as a 'one-off' and to take a bow to a grateful British Public. Lessons must be learned and steps taken to smarten up the act.

Of course, we must also remember that the true facts have yet to emerge, after due legal process.

Why not take a look at www.alternativevet.org , while you're here?