RSPCA given unprecedented access

[Sexual Chocolate]

The RSPCA may have good intentions but I have several issues with them. But this is now a step to far. Is this legal? Has any part of the Data proctection act been broken?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10234259/...

Edited by Sexual Chocolate on Monday 12th August 13:53

[10 Pence Short]

I see it as another example of why routine, medium-term retention of supposedly innocuous data, such as that gathered by ANPR, should be opposed. The case for necessity in impeding our privacy is not made out and, even if it were, this latest example shows how the state cannot be trusted to use the information is gathers properly.

[CDP]

This is just wrong.

Who next? Insurance companies, telesales or how about those helpful people who come round and offer to tarmac your drive?

[Sexual Chocolate]

Its the fireamrs info and vehicle info part that really pisses me off. I have nothing to hide but I don't trust the RSPCA as far as I could throw them with this kind of info. Why would they need this kind and furthermore why would they need medical information? RSPCA have no powers what so ever to prosecute and even then their prosecutions are usually misguided by public opinion and political influence.

[singlecoil]

I think I'm OK with it. I understand that people don't like it, but it seems that their objections to it revolve around not liking it, without specific reasons.

[10 Pence Short]

singlecoil said:

I think I'm OK with it. I understand that people don't like it, but it seems that their objections to it revolve around not liking it, without specific reasons.

Do you believe the checks undertaken by the RSPCA are as stringent as those done by the Police when recruiting? Do you believe RSPCA employees are regulated in the same way as medical practitioners?

I feel very uncomfortable that low-level staff at an animal charity may have access to details of my criminal or medical history.

It is a situation ripe for abuse.

[Rude-boy]

Agree with 10PS and would post the same.

[Marlin45]

Firearms licencing info will state why you have been given 'permission' to have such firearms (deer/vermin control/boar etc.) this is a worry especially when this organisations senior employees and others have been shown time and again to be linked to 'anti' groups suct as PETA?

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/08/i...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9833780/R...

Edited by Marlin45 on Monday 12th August 15:24

[singlecoil]

The thing is, the police have outsourced the prevention of cruelty to animals to the RSPCA, and the prosecution of suspected offenders. That being the case, I can see no reason why the RSPCA should not have same access to the information as do the police.

The answer is for the police to do the enforcement work that the RSPCA does currently.

[Devil2575]

Marlin45 said:

Especially when this organisations senior employees and others have been shown time and again to be involved with 'anti' groups suct as PETA?

Have they?

[catfood12]

That's outrageous. Another, perhaps unsurprising extension to the RIP laws. I remain staggered that council officials are allowed to access the same amount of information. As a company owner, I'm subject to data protection legislation, and the requirement to respond to SARNs. Are the RSPCA similarly burdened ? Lest we forget the pensioners and other people who give so much to these 'PLC' charities and genuinely believe their few pounds or pence are going towards really helping animals/children/poorly people etc... ? Don't get me started on the bunfight between the two cancer charities or the likes of Plan International and Worldvision. The insipid spread of this confidential data leakage (even without the assistance of the Lulz) is undermining the very basis of how the general public expects their confidential information to be handled.

[CDP]

singlecoil said:

The thing is, the police have outsourced the prevention of cruelty to animals to the RSPCA, and the prosecution of suspected offenders. That being the case, I can see no reason why the RSPCA should not have same access to the information as do the police.

The answer is for the police to do the enforcement work that the RSPCA does currently.

The RSPCA investigating cruelty within the law is a good thing but they are not an authority and should have no right of access to any of this sort of information. If they believe a crime is being committed they should get the police involved.

The police should not have outsourced policing to anybody.

It will be BRAKE next.

[Rude-boy]

singlecoil said:

The thing is, the police have outsourced the prevention of cruelty to animals to the RSPCA...

Genuine question.

Have they? Or have the RSPCA just taken over that area to the point where the Police are happy to await the occasional delivery of a nice tidy case for them and the CPS to lay the charges and then leave to the RSPCA to do the rest of the work?

There was a thread the other day about this data issue in NP&E and I seem to remember the suggestion from that that the RSPCA like to pretend that they have powers they do not other than that they can tell an attending Police Officer the authority under which he can use his powers IYSWIM.

[singlecoil]

Rude-boy said:

singlecoil said:

The thing is, the police have outsourced the prevention of cruelty to animals to the RSPCA...

Genuine question.

Have they? Or have the RSPCA just taken over that area to the point where the Police are happy to await the occasional delivery of a nice tidy case for them and the CPS to lay the charges and then leave to the RSPCA to do the rest of the work?

I'm not intimately familiar with the workings of these things, but it was my understanding that the RSPCA investigate and prosecute animal cruelty cases, and such cases involve breaking the law. So whether or not there was ever a deliberate intention to outsource such cases I don't know, but that is what has happened and what is happening, so it amounts to the same thing.

[Sexual Chocolate]

Marlin45 said:

Firearms licencing info will state why you have been given 'permission' to have such firearms (deer/vermin control/boar etc.) this is a worry especially when this organisations senior employees and others have been shown time and again to be linked to 'anti' groups suct as PETA?

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/08/i...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9833780/R...

Edited by Marlin45 on Monday 12th August 15:24

BINGO!

I shoot and as soon as my dog is old enough I will be shooting over her. I don't want the RSPCA who has some agenda to apease those that know very little about hunting/shooting interfering with my hobby telling me I can't hunt with the dog as its "barbaric" according to Mavis (43) - Islington high street.

Edited by Sexual Chocolate on Monday 12th August 15:39

[singlecoil]

Sexual Chocolate said:

Marlin45 said:

Firearms licencing info will state why you have been given 'permission' to have such firearms (deer/vermin control/boar etc.) this is a worry especially when this organisations senior employees and others have been shown time and again to be linked to 'anti' groups suct as PETA?

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/08/i...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9833780/R...

Edited by Marlin45 on Monday 12th August 15:24

BINGO!

I get the feeling that you feel a point has been proved with that. Do you care to share it?

[Marlin45]

From the link below....

' And – a little known fact – if the RSPCA brings a case and loses it, the costs of the defendants are usually borne by the taxpayer. So the RSPCA can prosecute almost without thinking. It can go to law as a marketing tool or to make a political point.'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/countryside/97808...

[Derek Smith]

10 Pence Short said:

singlecoil said:

I think I'm OK with it. I understand that people don't like it, but it seems that their objections to it revolve around not liking it, without specific reasons.

Do you believe the checks undertaken by the RSPCA are as stringent as those done by the Police when recruiting? Do you believe RSPCA employees are regulated in the same way as medical practitioners?

I feel very uncomfortable that low-level staff at an animal charity may have access to details of my criminal or medical history.

It is a situation ripe for abuse.

Whilst I agree with what you say, 10PS, you must be prepared for this sort of access to be extended. G4S will have access within a short time. They could not do the jobs they will be given without it. Further, under PFI, private companies have access, nominally under close supervision of the police but that is somewhat mythical. If you think the RSPCA has poor quality staff, look at the peanuts paid by many PFI companies and then work out what type they employ.

Welcome to the New World.

[odyssey2200]

Derek Smith said:

10 Pence Short said:

singlecoil said:

I think I'm OK with it. I understand that people don't like it, but it seems that their objections to it revolve around not liking it, without specific reasons.

Do you believe the checks undertaken by the RSPCA are as stringent as those done by the Police when recruiting? Do you believe RSPCA employees are regulated in the same way as medical practitioners?

I feel very uncomfortable that low-level staff at an animal charity may have access to details of my criminal or medical history.

It is a situation ripe for abuse.

Whilst I agree with what you say, 10PS, you must be prepared for this sort of access to be extended. G4S will have access within a short time. They could not do the jobs they will be given without it. Further, under PFI, private companies have access, nominally under close supervision of the police but that is somewhat mythical. If you think the RSPCA has poor quality staff, look at the peanuts paid by many PFI companies and then work out what type they employ.

Welcome to the New World.

I had an unfortunate encounter with a G4S clown last Friday.

I wouldn't trust these morons with access to my grocery list.

Edited by odyssey2200 on Monday 12th August 16:14

[Rovinghawk]

singlecoil said:

I think I'm OK with it. I understand that people don't like it, but it seems that their objections to it revolve around not liking it, without specific reasons.

Privacy is its own justification.

If you think having your private information given to all & sundry isn't a big deal, please post your full name, address, dob, phone numbers, blood type & inside leg measurement on this thread.

If you (quite rightly) do not do so then we can infer that privacy matters.