Charity is merely a sign that the system is not working if it was there would be no need for charity, I was going to call this top four corrupt charities but I can’t do that because there are thousands of them and many of which I have never heard of so instead of calling it top four charities that are corrupt I will simply call this post; Four ridiculously corrupt “charities” that operate in the UK.
Cancer research is a terrible “charity” that makes profit from oppressing natural drugs that have been proven to be effective over and over again. Why do they do this simply because corporate made drugs are more profitable. Thats not all Cancer research has also been attacked and targeted by the animal rights organization Animal Aid in a publicity campaign involving a series of advertisements in British newspapers urging members of the public to stop giving donations to organizations that fund medical research involving animal experiments like Cancer research do. A disgraceful “charity” that only care for money.
National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children also known the NSPCC
Endorsed by none other than Sir Jimmy Savile wikipedia tells us; The NSPCC documented allegations of Satanic ritual abuse in 1990, with the publication of survey findings that, of 66 child protection teams in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, 14 teams had received reports of ritual abuse from children and seven of them were working directly with children who had been ritually abused, sometimes in groups of twenty. An investigation into SRA allegations by the British government produced over two hundred reports, of which only three were substantiated and proved to be examples of pseudosatanic abuse, in which sexual abuse was the actual motivation and the rituals were incidental.
The NSPCC also provided a publication known as Satanic Indicators to social services around the country that has been blamed for some social workers panicking and making false accusations of sexually abusing children. The most prominent of these cases was in Rochdale in 1990 when up to twenty children were taken from their homes and parents after social services believed them to be involved in satanic or occult ritual abuse. The allegations were later found to be false. The case was the subject of a BBC documentary which featured recordings of the interviews made by NSPCC social workers, revealing that flawed techniques and leading questions were used to gain evidence of abuse from the children. The documentary claimed that the social services were wrongly convinced, by organisations such as the NSPCC, that abuse was occurring and so rife that they made allegations before any evidence was considered.
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals also know as the RSPCA
A disgraceful “charity” with a long list of criticism on wikipedia and in mainstream news.
Fund-raising in Scotland
The RSPCA has been criticised by the Scottish SPCA for fund-raising in Scotland and thereby “stealing food from the mouths of animals north of the border by taking donations intended for Scotland.” The RSPCA insists that it does not deliberately advertise in Scotland but that many satellite channels only enabled the organisation to purchase UK-wide advertising. In a statement, the RSPCA said it went “to great lengths” to ensure wherever possible that adverts were not distributed outside England and Wales, and “Every piece of printed literature, television advertising and internet banner advertising always features the wording ‘The RSPCA is a charity registered in England and Wales'”. “All Scottish donors, who contact us via RSPCA fundraising campaigns, are directed to the Scottish SPCA so that they can donate to them if they so wish.” The Scottish SPCA changed its logo in 2005 to make a clearer distinction between itself and the RSPCA in an attempt to prevent legacies being left to its English equivalent by mistake when the Scottish charity was intended.
In September 2012 the RSPCA euthanized 40 sheep, based on the decision of the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency, and were accused of using the photographs to further their campaign against animal exports.
The RSPCA stated that they were present at the request of the Port Authority, Thanet District Council, to ensure that animal welfare laws were fully implemented in the operation headed up by DEFRA. The animals were all checked by several independent vets including two Defra vets, and the decisions on the day to slaughter the sheep was taken by Animal Health, and not by RSPCA inspectors.
However, the National Farmers’ Union said that it “still leaves many questions to be answered, by both AHVLA and the RSPCA”, and that “The NFU also still has questions about why the method of slaughter used resulted in so much blood in the photographs”.The RSPCA responded to this by stating that the amount of blood shown in the photographs was caused by ‘moving the dead bodies to an area where they were piled up pending collection for disposal’.
Badger culling and politicisation
The RSPCA’s opposition of a badger cull has been commented upon; in 2006 there was controversy about a “political” campaign against culling, with the Charity Commission being asked to consider claims that the charity had breached guidelines by being too overtly ‘political’. The charity responded saying that it took “careful account of charity law and the guidance issued by the Charity Commission”.
Slaughter of sacred cow
On 13 December 2007 the RSPCA unlawfully trespassed onto Bhaktivedanta Manor Hindu temple and unlawfully slaughtered the sacred cow Gangotri. The cow was under veterinary care and was recovering from an illness. 200 people protested at the RSPCA headquarters about the killing, and the RSPCA was sued by the Hindu monks of Bhaktivedanta Manor Hindu temple. On 13 December 2008, the RSPCA admitted culpability, apologized for the killing of Gangotri, and donated a pregnant cow to the sanctuary representing a symbol of reconciliation.
In 2012, the RSPCA spent £326,000 on a successful magistrates’ court prosecution of the Heythrop Hunt. The charity reported: “We believe that this was the first ever prosecution of a traditional hunt as a corporate body. The Heythrop Hunt pleaded guilty to four offences of intentionally hunting a fox with dogs on four separate occasions.” The huntsman and hunt master involved also pleaded guilty to the same offences. The relatively large amount spent in securing a prosecution (£6,800 in fines were imposed) led to criticism by the trial judge, who was later investigated for his comments, the media and some MPs, who accused the charity of breaching its “duty of prudence”. The RSPCA said in response that “the overwhelming support from our supporters and the public confirms that the vast majority of people are right behind us. They want us to speak out and stand up for all animals – farm animals, pets, animals used in research and wildlife – by bringing those who abuse them to justice.”
Allegations of discrediting of witnesses
On 7 August 2013 the BBC Radio 4 Face the Facts radio program broadcast an episode called “The RSPCA – A law unto itself?” The program presented a number of cases of where the RSPCA has sought to hound vets and expert witnesses who had appeared in court for the defence in RSPCA prosecutions. In one case it sought to discredit the author of the RSPCA Complete Horse Care Manual (Vogel) after he appeared as an expert witness for the defence team in an RSPCA prosecution. The RSPCA later released a statement saying that this is untrue and that they do not persecute vets and lawyers who appear for the defence and as defence experts. There have been thousands of lawyers taking defence cases against the RSPCA and they have only ever made a complaint about one.
Deputy chairman raises concerns over ‘political’ allegations
In September 2013 the RSPCA deputy chairman Paul Draycott said that ‘too political’ campaigns threatened the charity’s future and could deter donors. Draycott said that the RSPCA could go insolvent “We have spent months discussing where we want to be in 10 years time, but unless we develop a strategy for now we won’t be here then”. In response the chairman Mike Tomlinson said “The trustee body continues to place its full support behind the RSPCA’s chief executive, management and all our people who do such outstanding work”. The accusations of politicization remain unsubstantiated.
Paul Draycott also warned that the RSPCA fears an exodus of “disillusioned staff” with “poor or even non-existent management training and career paths” for employees. In response the RSPCA’s chief executive, Gavin Grant denied suggestions in the memo that there was “no strategy” in some areas, stating that there was no difficulty in attracting trustees or serious internal concerns about management.
Whistleblower suicide and Charity Commission investigation
In May 2013 former RSPCA employee Dawn Aubrey-Ward was found hanged at her home when suffering from depression after leaving the animal charity. Aubrey-Ward had been a whistleblower against RSPCA bad practices. The RSPCA subsequently had a meeting with the Charity Commission over its approach to prosecutions.
Advertising standards violation
An advertisement published by the RSPCA in the Metro newspaper said: “The UK Government wants to shoot England’s badgers. We want to vaccinate them – and save their lives.” But more than 100 people complained to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), saying the use of the term “exterminate” was misleading. The advertising standards watchdog judged that the advert was likely to mislead the general public who had not taken an active interest in the badger cull saying, “The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told the RSPCA not to use language that implied the whole badger population in the cull areas would be culled in future advertising.” An RSPCA spokesman said it “welcomed” the judgement of the ASA to dismiss three of the areas of complaint about their advert but “respectfully disagreed” with the complaint which had been upheld.
Small animal shelters
In November 2013 the RSPCA was accused of instigating police raids on small animal shelters with insufficient evidence that animals were being mistreated. The owners claimed that they were being persecuted because of their “no kill” policy of only putting animals down if they cannot be effectively treated. The RSPCA stated that their inspectors will offer advice and guidance to help people improve conditions for their animals, and it only seeks the help of the police where it considers there is no reasonable alternative to safeguard animal welfare.The RSPCA also stated that whilst a few of their own branches operate “no kill” policies themselves, that many of its branches still puts down excess animals, with the RSPCA killing half of the animals that enters its care.
Countryside Alliance criticism
In December 2013 the Countryside Alliance stated that the RSPCA had moved away from its role of promoting animal welfare and was now interested only in animal rights. General Sir Barney White-Spunner said that the RSPCA has turned into a “sinister and nasty” organisation and urged members of the Countryside Alliance to stop donating to the RSPCA the “once great institution”. White-Spunner also said that RSPCA inspectors have been given intrusive powers with no proper basis in law. In response, the RSPCA accused the Countryside Alliance of being out of touch with public opinion and denied that it had departed from its original remit.
Comparison to the holocaust
In June 2014 RSPCA campaigner Peta Watson-Smith compared the conditions livestock are brought up in across the country to that of the Jews during the Holocaust. The comments were condemned by countryside campaigners and Jewish groups.In 2015 Peta Watson-Smith was elected to the RSPCA ruling council saying more money should be spent prosecuting farmers. At the same election the RSPCA members also voted to give a seat on the ruling council to Dan Lyons, who has previously called for pet owners to sit an exam.
Cat euthanasia, false prosecution, media errors and an apology
In August 2014 it was reported that, following a review by the Crown Prosecution Service, the Director of Public Prosecutions had exercised her powers to take over and drop all charges brought by the RSPCA against the owners of a cat for causing it suffering due to having matted fur and being thin. It was reported that the RSPCA euthanised the cat because its hair was too long. A spokesman for the charity said it had been concerned for the cat’s welfare. The owners claimed that the RSPCA had refused to defer the euthanasia to allow their children to say good-bye to the pet they had owned for 16 years, a claim initially denied by the RSPCA on BBC radio. The family accused the RSPCA of lying over the facts of the case to try and justify its actions. In October 2014, the family met with senior RSPCA staff and their Independent Reviewer Stephen Wooler CB. They presented a recording taken at Wendover Heights Veterinary Surgery on the day the cat was euthanised. In November 2014, the RSPCA issued the following apology to the owners of the cat: On 16 May 2013, an RSPCA inspector responded to a call from a member of the public concerning ‘Claude’, an elderly cat belonging to Mr and Mrs Byrnes. Claude was removed from the family home and euthanased by a vet the following day against the wishes of Mr and Mrs Byrnes. The RSPCA acknowledges that the way in which it intervened in taking Claude from his home and the subsequent treatment of Mr and Mrs Byrnes at that time was disproportionate and insensitive and fell short of the standards of compassion the public are entitled to expect of the RSPCA. Specifically, the RSPCA accepts that its decision not to defer euthanasia so that Mr and Mrs Byrnes’ children could say goodbye to the pet cat they had known their entire lives caused great and unnecessary distress to the whole family. In November 2013, the RSPCA began legal proceedings against Mr and Mrs Byrnes. They were individually charged with two offences under section 4(1) (unnecessary suffering) and section 9(1) (duty of person responsible for animal to ensure welfare) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Following a review of the charges by the Crown Prosecution Service, in August 2014, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) exercised her powers to take over and discontinue the prosecutions because they failed to meet the tests set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. The RSPCA accepts that it failed to apply the evidential and public interest tests correctly prior to bringing legal proceedings against Mr and Mrs Byrnes and that it was wrong to have commenced prosecutions against them. The decision of the DPP to discontinue the prosecution received widespread media attention in August 2014. The RSPCA acknowledges that it made a number of unfortunate errors in its public responses to this coverage which could have been understood to cast doubt on the correctness of the DPP’s decision to discontinue the prosecutions. The RSPCA accepts that the cumulative effect of these errors presented Mr and Mrs Byrnes in an unfavourable light to the public. The RSPCA sincerely apologises to Mr and Mrs Byrnes and their family for the mistakes made in its original intervention, in its incorrect decision to prosecute them and for the errors in its media responses and for the resulting upset and deep distress caused both to them and their children.
A review marked “confidential” carried out by Stephen Wooler, a former chief inspector to the Crown Prosecution Service, concluded that the cat “Claude” had been removed without any lawful authority and that “Respect for due process and the rights of individuals was largely absent.”
In October 2014 the RSPCA Council set up an independent review of the society’s performance so that it might listen to and learn from any feedback, including criticism and complaints. The report that followed, conducted byStephen John Wooler CB, highlighted the unique remit of the RSPCA as a successful prosecuting animal welfare organisation, whose prosecutions team “enjoys good standing before the courts for the effective manner in which its cases are presented.” While it also stated that the RSPCA operates in an “unstructured and haphazard” environment, the report also asserted that the society is not only making a huge contribution to animal welfare, it is also “fulfilling a very significant constitutional role” whose contribution in terms of expertise and resources is huge and “simply too valuable to be lost.”
The RSPCA admitted that in 2014 it had euthanised 205 healthy horses. In one particular case 12 horses from a Lancashire farm that had been assessed by vets as being “bright, alert and responsive” and suffering no life-threatening issues were killed by the RSPCA. In a 2016 court case the RSPCA admitted that in 2015 it had illegally slaughtered 11 healthy horses, and attempted to charge the owner for 100 days of stabling fees for the period after the horses were already dead. The charge was overturned in a court decision.
Apology from new CEO
In 2016 the new head of the RSPCA, Jeremy Cooper, made a dramatic, public apology for the charity’s past mistakes and vowed to be less political and bring fewer prosecutions in the future. The new Chief Executive admitted that RSPCA had become “too adversarial” and will now be “a lot less political”. Mr Cooper said that the charity had alienated farmers in its aggressive campaign against the Government’s badger cull and disclosed that it would be “very unlikely” to ever bring another prosecution against a hunt.
Direct Debit donor recruitment campaign
In 2016 the Fundraising Standards Board upheld a complaint against RSPCA that in recruiting people to regularly donate money by Direct Debit had failed adequately to monitor compliance with the Code and had failed to comply with the requirements of fundraising sites, where owners had prohibited the collection of Direct Debit payments. The Fundraising Regulator is considering what further actions need to be taken arising from the report’s findings and recommendations.
On 6 December 2016, the RSPCA was fined £25,000 by the UK Information Commissioner’s Office which ruled that the charity had breached data protection legislation by employing external bodies to analyse the financial status of supporters in order to appeal to them for further donations, a practice known as ‘wealth screening’, and by trading the personal details of its donors with other charitable organisations. The BBC reported that, “Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham said donors had not been informed of the charity’s practices, and were therefore unable to consent or object to them. She also suggested other charities could also be engaged in similar activities. ‘The millions of people who give their time and money to benefit good causes will be saddened to learn that their generosity wasn’t enough,’ Ms Denham added. The same BBC report noted that the charity’s chief executive had stated, “There is no suggestion that we lost or sold any personal data, but rather the ICO considered the information we gave to supporters on how their personal data would be used was inadequate. There has been one acknowledged contravention, through an inadvertent error, which we ourselves brought to the ICO’s attention.”
Resignation of CEO
CEO Jeremy Cooper resigned after just on year in charge, with the RSPCA’s governance being described as “utterly dysfunctional”.
National Federation of Young Farmers’ Clubs also know as the NFYFC
These sent me death threats in the past for simply exposing them well guess what I’m still alive (surprise, surprise) and I’m now going to expose them again. They describe themselves like this; We are one of the largest rural youth organisations in the UK dedicated to young people who have a love for agriculture and rural life. Sounds good doesn’t it? Except they seem to spend more of their time ripping of silly members (the bored and lonely youth of the countryside that just want fweinds.)
The reason I believe this “charity” is corrupt is simple, they are not a legitimate charity! Who the fuck do they help? The NFYFC should operate as a business not a charity and then people like me would have a lot less to moan about.
They encourage drinking and drugs to their young and stupid members and make a good profit from it at the same time. Charity is supposed to be there to help people the NFYFC help themselves, the fat cat owners and NOBODY ELSE.