Astonished bird case was brought to court
THE details of the prosecution of a man for keeping five wild birds in captivity beggars belief.
The birds were not harmed but merely kept in captivity, which was deemed to amount to cruelty. The RSPCA ran up prosecution costs of £25,000 which not surprisingly was beyond the means of the defendant, who was ordered to pay £1,500 towards costs as well as a fine of £424. Presumably the taxpayer will pick up the tab.
There were, according to the report, at least 14 court hearings. That is almost three court hearings per bird. The police, magistrates court and RSPCA were all involved. Are there really not more serious matters for them to address?
I understand that there is a long waiting list of cases to be heard, which our new resident judge intends to address.
From Monday to Friday,
Come and enjoy our special menu at £12 per person for 3 course-meal.
Terms:
Not in conjunction with any other offers.
From Monday to Friday for lunch and dinner.
Subject to availability.
Contact: 01752 424381
Valid until: Wednesday, July 31 2013
Millions of birds are torn to pieces by predators, to say nothing of cats which delight in inflicting a slow and painful death on them. As for the cruelty of keeping them in captivity, what about the millions of broiler chickens and pet birds kept in cages of various sizes, including at zoos? Would the RSPCA not be employing its influence and skills to greater use in, for example, stopping the mass slaughter of migratory birds in Malta and Italy?
I am astonished that this matter was not knocked on the head at a very early stage, and certainly once it had got to court. My respect for the RSPCA, which could have stopped the process at any time, is sadly diminished. No doubt the police were compelled to follow up the complaint once it had been made.
I was glad to see that apparently the RSPB were not involved. In my opinion, they have a more balanced view.
NAME & ADDRESS SUPPLIED
Comments
by Vinnie_Gar
Monday, August 27 2012, 2:07PM
“What is an "astonished bird" ?”
by Nevman
Monday, August 27 2012, 12:54PM
“That's an interesting point you make about the prosecution costs being beyond the defendant's means to pay, Name & Address Supplied. Are you seriously suggesting that only trials which can turn a profit should be prosecuted? You'd be giving an awful lot of people carte blanche to commit any crime they feel like.
Or did you only throw that into the mix in an attempt to bolster up a letter which is otherwise just saying: "I don't care about cruelty to animals"?”