7/28/2019 RSPCA and the Ramsgate Saga

1/3

http://www.farmersguardian.com/home/livestock/ramsgate-report-raises-questions-about-rspca-role/53935.article

Farmers GuardianEmma Penny, Editor

Quote: FARMERS are suddenly everyones friends - at least in the retail world. It is a seismic shift,and one which played out very publicly at this weeks NFU conference.

Wednesday, 06 March 2013

Ramsgate report raises questions about RSPCA role5 March 2013 | By Alistair Driver

AN official report into an incident which resulted in the death of more than 40 sheep at Ramsgate portclaims the RSPCA ordered Government officials to unload sheep at the port.

Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA) inspectors had wanted to move the sheep tonearby contingency facilities to deal with injured animals. But, after the RSPCA deployed its lawyers toargue its case, they agreed to unload the sheep at the port.

The AHVLAs official version of events at the Kent port on September 12 makes uncomfortable reading forboth the agency and the RSPCA, highlighting the confusion between them over how to handle the incident.

The report shows how contingency plans meant to be in place for what should have been a relativelystraightforward incident were thwarted at every turn. This eventually resulted in the controversialshooting of more than 40 sheep at the port, more than nine hours after a single sheep on a lorryload of 548 was identified as injured during a routine inspection. Two more sheep drowned.

NFU deputy president Meurig Raymond said the report showed the RSPCA appeared to have exertedsignificant influence over Government officials on the ground, despite having no official role at the port.

Mr Raymond urged the RSPCA to clarify the role its inspectors are at the port to fulfil.

It is highly concerning that, although the RSPCA has no official role at the port, from an early stage, theywere making objections to agreed contingency plans, making interventions from their legal team and, withinan hour of a problem being found, they had instructed AHVLA officers to unload animals at the port,despite RPSCA previously highlighting the lack of suitable facilities for handling animals, he said.

He also questioned the method of slaughter deployed by the RSPCA and why it took photographsand publicised the events in the media despite its clear influence in the decision-making process.

The RSPCA defended its role in the incident, insisting all the major decisions were taken by AHVLAofficials and that it had been proved right to block the decision to move the animals off the premises.

How the day unfolded

The report details how, at 8.35am, AHVLA inspectors identified a sheep with a limb trapped between thedeck floor and the shell of the French lorry, which had brought the sheep to the port for export to Calais onthe MV Joline.

More animals were identified by AHVLA and RSPCA officials that were either injured or at risk due totrapped limbs. There were also concerns about overstocking.

The AHVLA inspectors decided that the lorry could not proceed with its journey and must divert to localpremises to rectify the problems that had been identified, including euthanising the severely injured sheep.

The contingency premises were approximately 24 miles, and 45 minutes from the port. But an RSPCAofficial contacted AHVLA to say he was not happy with the decision as the vehicle was not consideredsuitable and was over-stocked.

He further instructed that any unfit animals must be unloaded at the port, the report said.

http://www.farmersguardian.com/home/livestock/ramsgate-report-raises-questions-about-rspca-role/53935.articlehttp://www.farmersguardian.com/home/livestock/ramsgate-report-raises-questions-about-rspca-role/53935.article

7/28/2019 RSPCA and the Ramsgate Saga

2/3

The AHVLA warned that this was not appropriate as there were no facilities at the port to unload animals.

But at 10.45 am the AHVLA received a further call from the RSPCA official, this time in the presence of alegal adviser, who said the RSPCA was not prepared to allow the use of a vehicle that was unsuitable andoverstocked, to transport animals to the emergency facility.

RSPCA inspectors also rejected a suggested to euthanise the injured animal on board the lorry because

this was deemed inappropriate in front of other animals.

The AHVLA said it tried to find another vehicle to transfer some of the injured sheep away but by 11.15,aware of the need to act quickly, started making plans to unload the sheep at the port. A shed that couldhave been used was already in use and by 11.50 a decision was made to unload the sheep in an areaused to wash lorries.

As the sheep were unloaded, AHVLA and RSPCA inspectors marked 41, in addition to two alreadyidentified, as not fit to transport as they were exhibiting lameness. AHVLA said the aim was to carry out acloser inspection once the unloading was complete.

At 12.05 the two injured were euthanised but AHVLA was still planning to move the remaining sheep, in two

loads, to the contingency facilities.

But as the vehicles was being reloaded at 1.30pm AHVLA inspectors noticed a number of sheep had fallenthrough a drain hole into a well in the unloading area and were drowning. Four were rescued, two drowned.The sheep had dislodged a loose manhole cover.

The report then details AHVLAs futile attempts to secure an alternative vehicle to transport the sheep awayfrom the site and ongoing uncertainty over whether the original vehicle could be used.

By 15.45 the 41 sheep identified with lameness were re-examined by an AHVLA vet and a private vet whoagreed 37 were not fit to transport and should be euthanized on site.

Some of these animals showed evidence of recent injury, likely to have occurred in transit, others were ofa more long standing nature, caused by foot rot lesions, the lameness being exaggerated as they werepenned on hard standing, the report said.

Finally at 6pm the animals deemed unfit were slaughtered by RSPCA officials in a specially created pen.The RSPCA used a bolt gun stun the animals and a pithing rod to ensure death, and took photographs ofthe operation.

It was not until 1am the next day that a replacement vehicle finally arrived to transport the remaininganimals away from the port. It left at 2am to return the animals to a farm in Northamptonshire.

The French drivers of the lorry were arrested on the day by Kent police after refusing to co-operate withKent Trading Standards.

The AHVLA inquiry was ordered by Farming Minister David Heath. Mr Heath has already announced anumber of measures put in place at Ramsgate to as a result of the reports findings.

The report had been withheld from publication at the request of Kent Trading Standards until it completedits investigations into the incident.

Kent County Council has commenced criminal proceedings against a number of defendants, whose firstCourt appearance is scheduled for Tuesday April 2 at Canterbury Magistrates Court. The defendants arealleged to have loaded sheep which were unfit to travel and of transporting them in an inappropriate

vehicle.

7/28/2019 RSPCA and the Ramsgate Saga

3/3

Readers' comments (10)* Edmund Marriage | 5 March 2013 1:30 pm

The RSPCA is the same organisation which has driven the protection of the badger, in concert with most ofthe Animal Rights Industry, orchestrates funds paid to the Labour Party for political support, including 1.1million for badger protection and a hunting ban. The unnecessary cost to the taxpayer exceeds 3 billion.At Ramsgate the RSPCA staff were instructed by Gavin Grant to take a tough stand (his own words atColeford) in order to publicise their campaign to ban live exports. Some of us will remember over 200 bull

calves being shot in Oxfordshire by the RSPCA, as they were not allowed to be transported across thechannel by road, following the Coventry plane crash, which removed their immediate transport plans. Twodays after the Ramsgate incident Gavin Grant spent 90% of his time at a Badger Cull meeting in Coleford,milking the emotions of his uninformed audience, deliberately inciting them to join his ban live exportscampaign.

Now we find that true to form the reality of the RSPCA promoting suffering and preventing kindness on agrand scale where sheep are made to suffer a very long delay, double handling, forty shot inhumanely withblood everywhere, on the basic grounds of lameness, a curable condition made worse by loading andunloading. The picture of the forty dead sheep in a container with blood everywhere was posted on theRSPCA website implying that the incident was a consequence of live exports. The fact that the RSPCAasks for money having presented misleading and untruthful information to the public on a regular basis,

particularly badgers and TB, begs the questions - Why are the Police not enforcing our laws and takingcriminal action against the RSPCA for fraud ? What is the NFU doing by allowing the scientific and politicaltangled web of deceit on badgers and TB, preventing emergency powers being used to dispatch sicksuper-excreters and the gassing of infected sets now ?

*Victoria Thomas | 5 March 2013 1:40 pmI think it says everything we need to know about the RSPCA when they think they know better than Vetsand other experts. Grant clearly wanted to use this to his own advantage, which he did. The sooner this'charity' is rescinded the better, they are no good to man nor beast.

*Anonymous | 5 March 2013 3:28 pmThe use of the word euthanase instead of kill says it all.

*Chris Williams | 5 March 2013 3:40 pmIsn't it time the RSPCA lost both its "Royal" tag and its charitable status? It seems to do more harm thangood is increasingly becoming little more than a bunch of animal rights fanatics and meddlesomeincompetents.

* Anonymous | 5 March 2013 3:41 pmIf the sheep were slaughtered - let's not bandy words here - in the manner described, how did the bloodtrails get all over the walls as shown in the photograph frequently used to illustrate this outrage?

*m james | 5 March 2013 4:18 pm

Well said, Edmund Marriage!This government is NOT governing.

*Phil Smallwood | 5 March 2013 5:34 pmA while ago I collected a ferret that had wandered into a local ambulance station ( I haven't kept ferrets foryears but did as a child) Their initial phone call had been to the RSPCA who were "too busy". Good job theparamedics I "rescued" never take that attitude. I regularly deal with the general public. It seems more andmore people have similar tales to tell. It actually saddens me to see the state the Charity is now in.

*Anonymous | 5 March 2013 7:11 pmWas this report conducted by the AHLV themselves or by an independent body? if it was written by theAHLV there is surely a conflict of interests and the integrity of the report will be terminally compromised.

*Lonk tup | 5 March 2013 8:12 pmThe RSPCA with it privileged official status has been hi-jacked by thosewith a political agenda. We all need to watch out as ENGLISH NATURE is in a similar position and isheading down the same road. More attention needs to be turned on their methods. Quasi-corrupt dealing