RSPCA – Evil Greedy Bastards

From the comments here, it transpires that the RSPCA is to appeal the perfectly reasonable judgement that went against them in the Gill case.

The RSPCA has started an appeal five months after losing a court battle over a £2m estate left to it in a will.

Dr Christine Gill overturned her parents’ will last October after the High Court found her father had coerced her mother into making the document.

The will had left the couple’s 287-acre farm, near Northallerton, North Yorkshire, to the RSPCA.

The charity, which has been ordered to pay a huge legal bill, confirmed it had lodged an appeal against the judgement.

A spokeswoman said the RSPCA’s trustees had decided to appeal after “careful consideration”, because “they wish to see Mrs Gill’s wishes, as expressed in her will, given effect”.

They lost because they refused to mediate with Dr Gill – despite her numerous attempts to reach a settlement. This greedy, heartless charity is willing to see someone completely disinherited in order to satisfy its greed. This has nothing to do with Mrs Gill’s wishes and everything to do with money grabbing by a ruthless, greedy political lobby group charity.

In a joint statement with the Charities Aid Foundation, Great Ormond Street Hospital and the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association the RSPCA said: “This case has been troubling for many charities, and we are very concerned at its possible implications for the charity sector.”

Yes. Hopefully people will see them for what they are and stop giving to them.

It is crucial that this matter is finally settled, one way or the other, so charities can be more certain of the legal landscape, and can plan accordingly.

It was settled. When you are offered an opportunity to settle, you do so. If despite the offer of settlement, you belligerently insist upon taking the matter through the courts along with all that that entails in the way of costs and the anguish to the other party, you deserve to get a kick in the balls for doing so. Greed has its own reward. And, these misanthropic evil people are about to put Dr Gill through the uncertainty and misery of dragging the whole thing out further – along with yet more costs.

The moral of this ugly little tale is do not give money to the RSPCA – and I’ll add the likes of the evil NSPCC as well. In fact, any of the major charities. This is particularly so if they take money from the government as you are already donating by force via your taxes. And most certainly do not, ever, leave these bastards money in your will. If you want to leave money to an animal charity, choose anyone rather than the RSPCA, preferably small, self-funded ones that actually do care for the animals they help. Unless you hate your children, that is…


  1. A man who donated a series of gambling bets to Oxfam when he died, could raise the charity £330,000.

    Nicholas Newlife, from Kidlington, Oxfordshire, placed £4,420 on the long-term wagers with William Hill between 2000 and 2005.

    When he died in 2009, aged 69, Oxfam were delighted to discover he had left them his entire estate – including the betting slips.

    A flutter on Roger Federer winning 14 Grand Slam titles has already won Oxfam £16,750, after the Swiss tennis ace’s victory over Robin Söderling at the French Open last year.

    Nick also put £1,520 on Federer to win Wimbledon at least seven times before 2020, at 66/1. If Federer takes the title this year, Oxfam will collect an extra £101,840.

    And if all the bets turn out to be winners, the charity’s windfall would total over £330,000 – enough to provide emergency rations for 46,000 famine victims, or to supply safe drinking water for 350,000 people.

    Cathy Ferrier from Oxfam, said: “We’re enormously grateful to Mr Newlife for his generous gift, and will be keeping a close eye on Wimbledon this year as a result.

    It’s his choice and all but one does wonder why he bothered – particularly as Oxfam is considered not only to have a political bias in favour of Labour (strong enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia) but also considers itself sufficiently competent to meddle in deal with “trade justice, fair trade… debt and aid… gender equality, conflict (campaigning for an international arms trade treaty)… democracy, human rights and climate change”. It also has a pro-Palestinian bias, too. So not political at all, then.

    Just in case you were in any doubt that your donations are being put to good use.

    And as for the original post: I wholeheartedly agree with you. The sooner more and more people see through these organisations (I refuse to call them charities) and their often appalling behaviour the better.

  2. I feel terribly ignorant about all this. I’m certainly not naive, and I’m not terribly troubled by political leanings, unless they drastically clash with my own. However, I’m greatly troubled by the thought that such charities are not doing what they claim, or that monies are funding everything other than their basic premise (animals, children).

    Could you point me to some helpful articles… something written in layman’s terms? I’ve heard the terms ‘evil’ and so forth being thrown around the blogosphere about these charities, but I want specifics.
    .-= My last blog ..thorns and rivers =-.

  3. I’d start with the Charities Commission site and look at the funding. If a charity takes a significant amount of its funds from the taxpayer – i.e. more than it receives from donations, then it is likely to be heavily involved in lobbying and political activities. Fake Charities is embryonic, but will also give you some indication.

    The RSPCA has been in the news lately because of two cases, but it is far from the only offender. Paul points above to Oxfam. The NSPCC were heavily involved in taking children from their families during the satanic rituals scandal in the nineties. There was no satanic ritual and there was no abuse. Take a look at the personal account of an erstwhile supporter who challenged them on it. Consider this, do you want to donate to an organisation that will use your donation to fund a court case rather than to do what it is supposed to?

    As a general rule, I dislike any political activities by charities, whether they agree with my politics or not – that is not their raison d’être.

    The only general advice I would offer is to check out a charity before you decide to give; does it behave ethically? Is the money going to the cause you think that it is? Does this organisation involve itself in political lobbying?

    We give to the Blue Cross and Cerebra. I have also occasionally given to the Lifeboats. All of these are small outfits that do what they raise money to do.

  4. It’s also worth noting the ISPCC (Irish version of the NSPCC)’s pivotal role in enslaving children in the so-called ‘industrial schools’.

Comments are closed.