RSPCA Illegal Seizure Of My Dogs

by

Rosemary Wiggin

Synopsis Of Illegal RSPCA Seizure of Dogs 

It all started when I had a boy puppy that needed vet treatment. I advertised this puppy on facebook as I could not keep another male and I wanted a special home for him where I could be updated on his progress. 

Mrs x applied to my facebook add and we became friends (well so I thought) she started reporting me to the RSPCA with false allegations and started a hate campaign against me.

RSPCA 'inspector' Baker came to see me and I gave her a tour of our house and garden, she saw all my dogs and she praised me saying there should be more animal lovers like me and to give myself a pat on the back. She left saying keep up the good work there’s no concerns here at all, your doing great.

She used to phone me up saying there’s more allegations against me and she said some times she would phone me to tell me or she will just deal with them without telling me. She said don’t worry I will put it all straight as they are found to be false allegations by haters. Baker was replaced with Crutchley.

 RSPCA 'inspector' Crutchley came to see me over these allegations and he found the allegations to be untrue, he saw every where in the house and garden and all the dogs. then left saying no concerns and closed the case.

Mrs x continued to report me time and time again. Crutchley was replaced with Bashford and then hell started.

Mrs x recruited a cohort, Mrs y, into her hate campaign against me with her lies about me.

She then recruited a lot of people and also got them to report me too as these people believed everything Mrs x was feeding them about me. Before long she had an army of haters against me, using fake facebook accounts in my name, fake puppy adds online and a hate group page on facebook.

On 31st July 2014 my brother was on his annual 2 weeks holiday from work, he was planning to visit Twycross zoo on this particular day before he started to decorate the house and sort out the garden, something he always did during his annual 2 weeks summer holiday from work.

 We had to await my elderly House ridden mothers carer to visit first and she was running late. Eventually the carer came and following her visit it was decided my mother needed a doctor to attend as she was not well with a suspected urine infection. I attempted to call a doctor but was having problems getting through, so whilst I was waiting I decided to take my brother to the zoo as he had planned.  

I left him at the zoo and returned home via a visit to Morrisons to get my dogs food which was something I did every couple of days, as they usually liked fresh food such as meat as opposed to tinned dog food. 

As soon as I got home and walked through the door there was a knock on the front door. When I answered there were 2 RSPCA officers, I later found out one was Jayne Bashford and the other was Kate levesley. I told them they could not come in as i was trying to get a doctor out for my mother who was not very well. They would not leave and started to back me into the hallway a bit at a time until they were in the house, all this time I was telling them they could not come in due to my mother needing a doctor.

Now they were in against my wishes they started to ask me questions as to why my mothers carers were not allowed to go into certain parts of the house, why they were asking about that I do not know as they were not social workers or anything. 

As my mom was expecting another carer I had some of my shih tzu dogs behind a child gate in the kitchen allowing the carers access into the front room, where my mom slept as she was unable to climb stairs due to her mobility, therefore everything she needed was provided in the front room, including a small freezer for food cupboards for other foods etc, a kettle, microwave, and a water boiler for hot water to wash her, we had to heat water this way as the house does and did not have a water boiler only an old style immersion heater which was expensive to heat up, so in essence my mother had everything she needed in the front room meaning the carers didn't need to access any other part of the house.

Whilst Bashford was asking me questions there was another knock on the door, when I answered a woman who said she was my mothers social worker was there.

I told her she could not come in as the RSPCA were here, she replied ‘I know I have arranged to meet them here’, with that I closed the door but didn't lock it.

She then let herself in despite being told she could NOT come in. The RSPCA officers, Bashford in particular, continued to bombard me with questions. At some point the social worker, Selina Grant went into the front room and came back shouting there are more dogs outside.

I had a few, 5/6 dogs, in the kitchen and the rest, I had 18 in total, were having exercise in the enclosed, secure, back garden along with my brothers 3 tiny shih tzus, who I was looking after whilst he visited the zoo.

With this Bashford went into the back garden, via the side door from the kitchen, all this time I was insisting she should leave however she just ignored me and continued to do as she wished. She said me “you are in serious trouble, you don't know how much trouble you are in”. As to why she would say such a thing was baffling to me as my dogs were in good health and well looked after, as my neighbours testified by letters written after the incident.

Bashford was telling me I was in trouble, but would not tell me why, eventually after my continued protests to her to leave she said “ok I'll leave but I'll come back with the police to take all your dogs”.

This totally shocked me and at this point I tried to call my brother on the land line to get him home.

On a previous time I had to wake my brother up after a night shift when the same 2 rspca officers visited and would not leave when I was asking them. When my brother got up he asked if they had a warrant to which they said no, my brother replied well F@*k off then we'll get in touch when its convenient for you to come. We did contact them and an officer came out and did not state anything was wrong, also another officer had come on another occasion and as I was not busy with my mom I allowed him to come and look at the property and the dogs. Once again there was no issues. 

On this day though it was obvious that Bashford was intent on removing my dogs. I did also have some puppies on the property I was looking after whilst my friend was in hospital, her name is Terrie Colwell,  At one point I phoned Terrie and she spoke to Levesley, who told her she was arranging to take all the dogs, Terrie had made her fully aware that the puppies were hers and would be going to new homes shortly, this had no effect on Levesley and she continued to do as she wished along with Bashford.

Bashford was leading everything, going in and out of the house, to the garden and vice versa. They did not allow me to bring in the pups, despite it was now raining, instead they used this chance to take photos on Ipads of the pups being wet and now looking bedraggled. This was obviously a ploy by them to make the situation look worse,

At one point Bashford and Levesley went out to their van, whilst the social workerwas still in the house, I made some phone calls I was still in the front room frantically trying to get in touch with my brother, I also called Pat Williams a friend who is disabled.

Shortly afterwards I noticed a police officer in the back garden when was looking out the rear room window. All this time my mother, who had dementia, was scared as she did not know what was going on, this police officer, who I later found out was called PC Lawrence, came in to the house and started ordering me around and going around the house wherever he wanted, both upstairs and down, all totally without my permission and without a warrant.

I was still frantically trying to contact my brother and soon my brother called me, I told him what was going on and he asked me to get the police officer to speak to him, the police officer flatly refused, my brother told me to ask him for his name which he provided, and his search warrant which he did not show me as he did not posses one.

Soon a vet arrived and without examining any of the dogs she wrote a s18 cert for the removal of the dogs, this is contrary to the law which requires that each individual animal is examined in situ for the issue of such a certificate, this was not complied with and the RSPCA set about rounding up all my animals and putting them in transport crates.

Bashford ordered me to actually catch some of my dogs and hand them over to her, and even forced to put some in small pet carriers, she said it would be less stressful for the dogs if I was the one to catch them The look on their faces was something I'll never forget, they were clearly broken and devastated and couldn't understand what was going on, I was in an emotional state having my dogs taken from me, they were my family, I was being ordered around in my own home by Bashford and the police officer and they even tried to stop me from phoning my brother to get him home to help.

Bashford kept saying “get off that phone now your brother can't help you, no one can help you now, get off that phone and help catch your dogs”, Bashford said “we will be here all night if we have to as we ARE taking all your dogs”. They also took, without my knowledge or permission, my personal transport crate which I used if any on my dogs needed to visit the vet. This was blatantly a case of theft yet the police officer stood by and allowed them to do it.

All this time i was trying to contact a taxi service to pick up my brother.

Bashford, whilst rounding up my dogs, never once asked if any were receiving vet care or if any were getting medication, she just was not bothered about them, all she was interested in was catching them and taking them, she only asked if any were microchipped. My small white shih tzu called "Baby"had his 4 legs tightly wrapped around my arm in fear of them. Bashford proceeded to prise his legs from me and put him into a small carrier, he was petrified and looked like he wanted the ground to swallow him up.

My brother was trying from his end to contact a taxi company local to the zoo so as to get back as soon as he could, but to no avail as none were answering, so he started walking from the zoo towards the M42 motorway. This in itself was worrying as my brother suffered badly from asthma and walking any distance made him breathless. My frail mother screamed broken heartedly when the dogs were being rounded up, she had 2 shih tzu's torn from her who were sitting by her, and due to her failing sight and dementia she didn't know what was going on, nothing was ever explained to her and it seemed Bashford especially did not care one bit. 

I eventually was able to get a taxi to go out and pick my brother up, the taxi was from Lichfield, as this was the only firm I managed to contact, as this was a service from Lichfield it would take some time to get to where my brother was and get him home.

During the time they were taking the dogs, Bashford, a civilian with no legal powers read me my rights like a police officer would!, she did this several times I think it was to intimidate me.

Eventually my brother got home, however by now all the dogs including Terrie Colwells pups had been loaded into RSPCA vans, they had been rounded up by various methods, including being chased by an officer with a tree branch and garden tools, which they found in the rear garden, including a garden rake, a broom and their own dog catching pole with a loop on the end.

All this time was pleading with them not to hurt them, and not to let them out onto the main road as they kept leaving the side gate leading to the rear garden where they were trying to catch the dogs, wide open. I kept pleading with them to shut the gate so as to not risk them running onto the main road but this was falling of deaf ears.

When my brother got home he saw the police officer on the front garden and immediately approached him, asking him for his warrant, the police officer asked ‘why do you want to see my warrant card’?, to which my brother replied ‘search warrant, NOT warrant card’. Throughout this the police office was failing to inform my brother as to the reason why the dogs were being taken, at one point when my brother asked, he replied ‘why do you think’. The police officer also failed to ascertain my brothers I.D, something he claimed was the reason he would not speak to him on the phone for as he didn't know who he was going to be speaking to, yet this didn't seem to bother him this time. At this point my brother was clearly not very happy and Pat Williams led him away into the kitchen, still enraged my brother returned to the front garden where the RSPCA were, he approached Bashford and asked ‘when will we be getting the dogs back’?, Bashford replied ‘when things dramatically change’, what was meant to change was anybody's guess, my brother then said to Bashford, My three dogs have never been apart from me and might pine, they could even die due to it, Bashford smirked and shrugged her shoulders, this is meant to be a charity who care for animals yet Bashford was showing this to be far from the case. I said to Bashford that my black & white shih tzu called 'chelsea' was also still pining for her friend who had passed away 6 months earlier due to them being very close and she was still very upset at his loss due to them growing up together, Bashford once again sthrugged her shoulders in a cold heartless way.

I also said myself to Bashford ‘our dogs have never been away from us not even for one night’, she just shrugged her shoulders yet again, I said my Black and white shih tzu 'chelsea' was petrified of loud bangs such as fireworks and could have an heart attack and die should she be exposed to such, Bashford once again just shrugged her shoulders in a manner which showed she didn't care less. Shrugging her shoulders seemed to be her response to anything I said regarding the well being of the dogs. 

Bashford kept repeat asking me to sign the dogs over to the RSPCA, I constantly refused, I replied ‘they are our children there is no way I will ever sign them over to you, not over my dead body’.

 Bashford replied with ‘so then it will be your fault that they will go into cold concrete kennels, if you sign them over they will go to foster homes with nice warm soft beds, so because you won't sign them over, they'll go in cold concrete kennels instead of warm soft beds’, she then said, ‘so now you live with that’

Soon the RSPCA and the police officer Lawrence left without leaving anything by way of a receipt or any kind of acknowledgement that they had taken the dogs. My brother Paul then got in touch with the SHG via a google search, they informed him of several things to do which included writing to the RSPCA for our own vet to examine the dogs at their expense, this the SHG told him was a legal requirement, however despite several emails to the RSPCA, there was NO reply, my brother looked to see if he could make a complaint against the police officers actions and his entry without invitation and without a legal warrant, he did an online complaint to IPCC.

The next day I was home with my brother when there was a knock on the door, this time my brother answered it, RSPCA officers Bashford and Davies were at the door, this time my brother invited them in as we wanted to know where our dogs were and what was going on.

Whilst the RSPCA were here my brother was on the phone to the SHG who asked us to tell them that we wanted a vet of our choice to examine the dogs at their expense and this was a legal requirement, Davies and also Bashford categorically said that this was not going to happen and denied it was a legal requirement (we have a audio recording of this therefore it cannot be disputed what they said). 

SHG told him to first get their names (before they left) which Davies told us his whilst Bashford ignored the request, SHG told us to ask them to leave which my brother did and this time they did not argue with my brother who is far more assertive than me and they left.

I tried to go after them to get Bashfords name and they sped off nearly hitting me in the process. I still failed to get Bashfords name at the time.

I had also set up a recorder to record everything they said in the visit. My brother then tried to obtain a lawyer for legal advice and to represent us should the need be. He eventually found an animal defence specialist solicitor named Nigel weller and co from the south of england, we spoke to them to see if they would take the case as we are obviously several miles from their base and Nigel Weller said he did cases all over the country.

A few days later we were contacted by Bashford to ask us to attend an interview at Lichfield police station, in a recorded message she stated that if we did not attend this "voluntary" interview we would be arrested, which is obviously something she said as a threat as it was stated it was a voluntary interview.

Mr weller advised us to do a no comment interview and supplied us with a lawyer to attend from a local law firm, SHG also said we should do a no comment interview, as the RSPCA and indeed the Police are noted to twist any comment made in interviews. SHG sent us a video of a former police officer advising people not to comment in interviews due to this. I did the interview first and then my brother had to seek time from his job to do the same, the interviews were recorded on cd and we had to sign them, throughout the interview the Police officer present said nothing, everything said was asked by Bashford whilst the police officer just sat there and allowed them to do as they wished. 

I made endless calls to the RSPCA in order to get to visit my dogs but they never returned any calls. Eventually I contacted my lawyer Nigel Weller to see if he could help me to get to see my dogs. 

Some time later I got a call from the RSPCA to arrange a visit, I was told they were at a kennels at Stoke on Trent.

When we were eventually able to visit I found out that these RSPCA approved kennels were infact breeding kennels, foxtwood breeding kennels Stoke on Trent.

We both got to visit our dogs eventually, we were led into a large area with sectioned off concrete kennels about 8 ft by 4 foot in size, in these pens were one hard chewed up plastic bed with a blanket which barely covered the bottom of the bed, that was for 2/3 dogs. On the concrete floors were wood shavings which I was appalled at, as shih tzu's easily suffer eye ulcers if their eyes are exposed to things that can get into their eyes and wood shavings were certainly in this category, also I noticed that there was NOT one single bowl of water and this was on a very warm and humid day on which we only had t shirts on yet my dogs had NO access to drinking water.

When they were at home they always had access to clean water and on warm days the water was changed more often so has to keep it cool for them, also on hot day I added ice, but here they were with no water at all. I also realised to my horror that my shih tzu called Prince Dolce, who had only one eye, was not present with the rest, neither was my chihuahua, (who I was never allowed to see, I found out later she was in kennels in Shropshire on her own). I was very concerned that my one eyed shih tzu, Prince Dolce, was not present and I was not being given any info at all about his whereabouts or indeed if he was ok. This made me concerned for his life, eventually we had to leave and I assured my dogs they would be home soon to which Davies shook his head from side to side with a giant smirk across his face.

When my dogs realised I wasn't taking them one of my dogs, Scrappi, dropped to the floor in sadness, he was visibly distressed.

My brothers shih tzus were in a kennel with one of the boys who had not been castrated, my brother pointed this out to the kennel owner and asked them to separate them as one of his dogs, especially, was so small he feared for her should she get pregnant, the kennel people did not seem to care, Bashford and Davies certainly didn't.

When we went outside I asked where my shih tzu boy Prince Dolce, who had one eye, was. They kept me in the dark until they finally told me he was at a vets in Stoke and Davies said I had to make a decision, meaning to have him put to sleep, as he had an eye ulcer which they then said was due to his dirty fur he had when they were taken. This was completely false and my brother said to them ‘is that right, well that’s funny we have a letter from a groomer stating he was ok when he was groomed a few days before he was taken’, this obviously didn't go down well with their hopes of claiming it was because of me he had this eye ulcer when it was clear that the kennels he was at must of played a part as he was fine when he was taken. Ironically he was taken as they stated the environment wasn't suitable, yet here they all were surrounded in wood shavings on a cold concrete floor without water. This is what RSPCA approve of, is it?

A while later we found out that the dogs were moved to RSPCA kennels in Liverpool, who had NO heating during the cold winter during which time they were there.

We now was given direction to the vets where my one eyed shih tzu, Prince Dolce, was at and we met Davies and Bashford there.

I went into the vets with my friend, Marie who was with us, my brother didn't go in, but Bashford came into the room with us, I told the vet I wanted Bashford to leave the room as I would not give the name of my one eyed shih tzu whilst she was in the room, as my lawyer told me not to give the RSPCA the names of any dogs, because if we did they would then claim ownership of them.

 The vet brought out my little Prince Dolce, he was so pleased to see me and could not wait to get to me as the vet was holding him in her arms. The vet then placed him on the table, he started to jump up to me as he was so happy to see me, Bashford asked me to watch he didn't fall off the table to which I quickly replied ‘I know my dog I will never let him fall’. I then cuddled him on the vet table. I was then presented with a form to sign, for me to pay a vet bill of £2,000 if he needed to be operated on due to his eye, I signed the form without hesitation, and then said I'd like him to go to my own vet to be treated but Bashford was not happy with this at all. I also asked the vet if my Prince Dolce has to be operated on to castrate him and micro chip him whilst he was under anesthetic, she said she would but I'd have to pay for it there and then. 

I paid on my brothers Bank card, as he'd given it to me should I need to pay for anything for Prince Dolce, the vet said under the circumstances she would only charge £50, Bashford commented it would not help my case in any way having this done. 

My little Prince Dolce tried so very hard to stay awake whilst I was there but eventually fell asleep in my arms, then the vet took him away, she showed me a photo of his eye she had taken on her mobile phone, so I took a photo of it on my own phone, the vet then said she would try a lens first and if this failed to work then he would have to be operated on,

I phoned the vets the next day, and she told me my boy was comfortable. I then phoned every day for updates I was told the lens had worked and therefore he would not need operating on, and was sent back to the RSPCA'S approved kennels at Foxtwood Stoke on Trent, I said "oh no" as I feared he might get a recurrence of the ulcer and lose his only eye due to the wood shavings which were on the floor.

I then asked her if she had seen any of my other dogs, as the RSPCA said they had taken 6 of them to the vets with poorly eyes, the vet told me she had not seen any of my other dogs, just Prince Dolce. I asked if she had castrated and microchipped him, she replied she hadn't as he did not need to be operated on, but the money which was taken out of my brothers account was never refunded.

On one of my calls to my lawyer I was informed that the RSPCA had approached him with an offer of a deal, Mr Weller then told me what the deal was.

I could have 5-7 of my dogs back if I signed the rest over to the RSPCA, I instantly told him that I would not agree to this as they were all my family and how could you choose which family members to keep, they were all loved equally.

 Towards the End of the year (2014) we were summoned to attend a series of Pre trial hearings, first at Stafford magistrates court.

I recall one of these early hearings, our solicitors Nigel and Alex Weller could not make the hearing, this was due to snowy conditions, yet in the hearing the RSPCA's solicitor made light of our solicitors absence claiming the weather was not too bad, however our solicitor was based in Sussex where the weather was far worse. The presiding judge allowed them to mock our solicitors absence, making it out to be something more than the weather conditions, it seemed whatever they said they would not be questioned on it or asked to make it clear what point they were trying to make.

 The RSPCA made a section 20 application to have the dogs signed over to them BEFORE any trial had even taken place, the hearing for this was to be at Cannock magistrates court, it would also be the day the trial dates would be set. 

It was to be the first time we met one of our solicitors face to face, as Alex Weller had made the trip from Sussex for the hearing.

During the Hearing Alex Weller set out why he was opposing the RSPCA's application for a section 20 to have the dogs signed over to the RSPCA. The district judge agreed that he could not allow the application to proceed as it would deprive us of our dogs before we'd even been to trial which is not acceptable.

During this hearing the judge stated that he wanted to take this case but only had a window of a few days available where he could fit it in to his busy schedule, a two day hearing was pencilled in for the trial, the district judge stated that the ones who were victims of this at the time were the "doggies" and the sooner the case could be heard the quicker the "doggies" could be home, this did not go down well with the RSPCA as it was clear this judge would not bow down to them like they were used to.

Alex Weller asked the judge for permission for us to have an expert witness, the witness was to be a veteran vet and expert witness with years of experience, Colin Vogel, the RSPCA's solicitor opposed Mr Wellers proposal, but the Judge stated that the RSPCA had an expert witness in their legal team and that we. the defence. should also have one, as he wanted a level playing field. Again this was not something the RSPCA liked or it seemed were used to, so at this pre hearing the district judge had dismissed their application for a S20 and also allowed us to bring in an expert witness, the date was now set for a 2 day trial which would be heard by the same district judge.

Whilst we were waiting for the hearing date, Mr Weller got in touch with us to tell us that he had been informed that one of the RSPCA's witnesses, the police officer Lawrence, would not be able to make the trial dates as he was on holiday and as he wanted to question him on oath, the trial would need to be moved to a different date. What weren't made aware of, was that this meant that the Judge would now be changed and the Judge who wanted to take the case and referred to the dogs as "Doggies" would now not be the presiding judge. Had we been aware of this we would have insisted the trail go ahead on the date originally stated, but however due to us not being informed of this we agreed to the trial being move. 

We were keen to get the trial heard and with the amount of evidence we had including letters from carers and even my mothers doctor stating that the house was NOT in the condition stated by the RSPCA, also we had a letter from a groomer who had groomed some of my dogs days prior to them being seized and also letters from neighbours on both sides stating that the dogs were well looked after and indeed stating that what the RSPCA had claimed was incorrect. With a suitcase full of evidence we were obviously expecting a positive outcome from the trial and on top of this was the expert witness Colin Vogels report, who had yaers of experience.

The trial dates were set for 6th & 7th of may 2015, the first day being heard at Cannock magistrates court with the 2nd being heard at Burton Magistrates court.
When we attended the trial Mr Weller warned us that the RSPCA's lawyer, Paul Taylor was a slimy so and so, and this was proved to be an understatement.

 Nigel weller questioned the prosecution witnesses one by one, he suggested to RSPCA officer Bashford that this was not the first seizure she had been on and was indeed experienced in this side of the job she agreed, he then asked if she had taken samples of the Claimed faeces/urine due to her being experienced this would be a requirement for a court case should it go to one.

Bashford stated she DID NOT Take any samples, therefore her evidence was basically only "hearsay" and what she had said could NOT be proven due to the lack of hard evidence, he also asked her about the hallway and stair carpet being riddled in faeces. Bashford insisted her claim was correct, to which Mr Weller stated that the hallway had laminate flooring NOT carpet and their own photographs proved this fact.

There and then Bashford had lied on oath and this was proven by their own photographic evidence. However the presiding judge failed to question this and allowed her to continue to commit perjury, something which I must remind you is a serious offence, and in the case of Bashford her perjury could not be questioned she should have been charged with committing perjury but wasn't.

When the RSPCA's vet gave evidence Nigel Weller questioned her about why she had written 2 vet reports the second considerably more damning than the first. She claimed her computer had wiped the first report.

Nigel Weller confronted her about why she would then write a 2nd report differing from the first replacing words with VERY to make things sound bad. She was not really made to justify herself only to prove that the first had been deleted, she produced a screenshot which can be manufactured easily. However the judge took this as evidence and just told her to "take it as a learning curve".

Clearly her credibility as a witness was in doubt and clear to see but not once was this questioned by the judge, Quereshi, who was noted to be very harsh inRSPCA cases.

Again I have to remind you he was not the judge who was supposed to take the case.

When RSPCA officer Crutchley took to the stand his testimony differed quite a bit from Bashford and Levesley. He stated there was not a problem when he had visited just a few weeks prior to the dogs being taken by Bashford, he stated there was no concern at all. Quite amazing, as just a few weeks later Bashford and Levesley had made claims of a premises full of faeces and urine. Non of which they could produce evidence to verify and indeed their own photographs only showed 3 small piles of freshly done faeces in the garden.

Mr Weller then called expert vet witness Colin Vogel to give evidence. Mr Vogel stated, that clearly with the amount of dogs there should be considerably more faeces than what was photographed/videoed, he stated obviously someone was cleaning it up. However the only questioning the RSPCA's solicitor seemed he wanted to take was to question Mr Vogels credibility, focussing on his age and asked when he was last a practicing vet!. Here was a man with years of experience being questioned about his experience, whilst RSPCA's own vet, a vet who on her own statement stated she was a veterinary assistant, was not questioned on the same matter, even though she was not an experienced vet, but she was employed by the RSPCA, as Mr Weller had established. In my opinion her integrity as a supposedly neutral unbiased witness should have been questioned but wasn't, how someone on a payroll of an employer can be classed as neutral beggars belief but again judge Quereshi did not question her integrity one bit.
When I was called to give evidence I was asked questions about how much it cost per day to feed the dogs, I had trouble answering as I didn't budget day to day, their needs food wise was catered for by shop and they were generally fed fresh food. I also had tins of dog food should it not be available at time of shopping. I felt that this was irrelevant questioning as I was charged with a failure to keep a clean environment and not how I managed to feed to dogs.

The questioning, I later learned, was directed at my brother who gave me money, which I spent on my dogs more often than not. This was to make it that my brother was responsible not just for his own 3 dogs but for all of them, which he clearly wasn't, he just helped out as he could as he was working and that was what he was like.

Taylor, the RSPCA’s lawyer, also asked me if I drove and what car I had, the cars registration etc. What relevance this was to the case I did not and still do not know, it seemed he just asked random questions as he wanted and at no stage did judge Quershi ask him as to why he was doing this line of questioning, which was clearly irrelevant to the case and the charge.

 
My brother was last to give evidence, and at first he stood in the dock whilst Taylor looked at judge Queshi and asked questions, my brother did not reply as nothing seemed directed at him. Eventually he asked Taylor ‘are you speaking to me or the judge’, which obviously upset Taylor.

My brother stated that 3 dogs were his, but Taylor seemed more interested in accusing my brother of being liable for the rest due to him providing money, which I sometimes used to feed my dogs, my brother replied do the dogs who drink from water bowls on Virgin train stations belong to Richard Branson?.

Again, Taylor didn't like my bothers reply and went on about the unsafe boxes in one of the sheds in the garden, my brother pointed out that he had built solid wooden shelves on which the "stacking boxes" were stored and that they were designed to be stacked and even he had trouble moving them once stacked and that they were not or never were a safety issue to the dogs. This was the only thing the judge actually decided to believe from the defence, he couldn't really discount everything could he!.

My brother was provided with a photograph album of the dogs and asked to pick his three out, despite going through the book several times he could not pick his three out, it wasn't until later that we realised his dogs were NOT in the album he was given. Taylor used it to declare you can't even identify your own dogs, my brother who was unaware his dogs were not in the album stated that the photographs were of very poor quality and that he could not pick them out from them. It was obviously a ploy to make my brother look bad and again something which was not questioned by either the judge nor our own lawyer.

Eventually Alex Weller, my brothers solicitor, questioned my brother and bought up the fact that my brother had asthma, the RSPCA's vet witness Laura Hamilton claimed that there was a strong smell of ammonia in the house, my brother stated that this was a well known trigger for asthma attacks and he had never had an attack at home only at work. 

Had there been such a strong smell of ammonia present in the house, it would be doubtful that he would be here now, as he suffered badly from asthma, and such exposure would certain aggravate his condition. Yet why if the presence of the smell of ammonia was present did he NOT have an asthma attack whilst at home, again the Judge just shrugged this off without even looking for himself into what can trigger an asthma attack something he surely should have done.

Just a quick online search would have been sufficient this was found on google " Short-term inhalation exposure to high levels of ammonia in humans can cause irritation and serious burns in the mouth, lungs, and eyes. Chronic exposure to airborne ammonia can increase the risk of respiratory irritation, cough, wheezing, tightness in the chest, and impaired lung function in humans ".

Also had he looked at the doctors letter which my mother’s doctor had written, then the RSPCA's hearsay evidence of faeces, urine and ammonia would have been found to be totally unfounded as they could NOT produce any samples etc and their verbal evidence was not the same or indeed anywhere near that of other visitors to the property, including a doctor who was certainly an unbiased and neutral person.
Although unknown at the time our statements were not put forward to the court therefore our account of the day was not heard or seen by the presiding Judge. However it is unlikely that had they been read he would have believed anything other than the 'hearsay evidence' of the RSPCA, the presiding judge was notorious for giving severe punishments in RSPCA cases, however he Obviously didn't think he could do the same to us and this can only be due to the fact that he didn't believe that there was really a case to be answered.                                                  He still went in favour of the RSPCA and orders, included a 1 year conditional discharge, a costs order, and a year long ban on keeping dogs, but most serious of all a deprivation order, giving our dogs to the RSPCA for them to rehome. This was obviously a devastating thing for us and we instructed our solicitor to lodge an appeal.
In between the trial and appeal we arranged to go down to Sussex to speak to our solicitor Nigel Weller. When we got there, which was a long drive, Alex Weller was there but Nigel Weller wasn't. Just before we were about to leave, Nigel Weller appeared, he had just got out of bed he couldn't even bother to get up to speak to us after we had made the long journey to see him. He advised us that he would not be able to represent us at the appeal as he had another case scheduled for the dates set for our appeal hearing, he told us he had arranged for another barrister to represent us, Henry Spooner. I was worried about this change and when we got home my brother looked up Henry Spooner on google, it said he had done many cases against police and this put my mind at rest, however i didn't know what was in store for us at appeal.

APPEAL

Our appeal was heard at Stafford crown court and the presiding judge was "Michael Stephens" along with 2 magistrates. The RSPCA was represented by a female barrister. 

When we arrived at Stafford court on the first day we met with Henry Spooner and he said he had spoken to the RSPCA's barrister who he said was going to go easy on me whenI was giving evidence. This proved absolute nonsense and I will state why later. 

During the meeting with Spooner we talked about witnesses, sadly Terrie Colwell could not make it to Stafford due to her disabilities, we asked if she could give evidence via video link, however Henry Spooner was not interested in requesting this and therefore her evidence would not be heard. I felt this would be detrimental to our defence as she has spoken to Levesley on the day the dogs were taken and she was told they were taking the dogs, even before a vet or indeed a police officer had arrived, this shows that they were only ever interested in taking my dogs regardless of anything.
As the appeal began the RSPCA Witnesses were again first to give evidence, again the only evidence was "hearsay" and the photos and videos which they and the police officer Lawrence had taken. One of these was a video showing Bashford walking up to the side gate on the property and letting herself through WITHOUT either asking or trying to obtain permission to do so. This was astonishingly, totally overlooked by the judge. 

During her evidence Bashford stated there were a swarm of flies around a plastic dog kennel outside in the rear garden, however the video evidence could only show two or three, bearing in mind this was in the midst of summer in July, had there been faeces and urine everywhere then I'm sure the video would have clearly show many flies, but it did no. Bashford also stated the smell of the house (inside) was unbearable, she was now also saying there was a smell of bleach, I never was able to use bleach inside the house due to my brother reacting to it and it effecting badly his asthma, therefore only disinfection was ever used.

After Bashford gave evidence, next up was Levesley, Mr Spooner began questioning her and asked if during their "visit" did she and Bashford go everywhere together all the time, Levesley replied ‘yes’. Spooner then asked her, when you were in the garden there was a plastic dog kennel, ‘yes’, she again replied, when you walked up to it, Mr Spooner asked ‘were there any flies’?, Levesley replied ‘NO’. This contradicted what Bashford had claimed, Spooner went on to ask her ‘when you entered the house, what smell was there’?, she replied "a doggie smell", once again Levesley had totally contradicted what Bashford had stated, but yet again the judge did not question the conflicting evidence, which was very clear to anyone. It was clear that there were conflicting evidence being given by Bashford and Levesley and yet in Levesleys own admission, she and Bashford had gone everywhere together. So why was their evidence conflicting so much?.

It didn't stop there, when Crutchley gave evidence he also stated that during his visit some weeks earlier that there was a ‘doggie smel’l. Not once did he state anything more severe, he also said that the conditions were of a satisfactory condition, yet here we are just a few weeks later prosecuted for not providing a safe and clean environment and more importantly here are the RSPCA officers giving contradictory evidence, not one, but two, stating the smell was a doggie smell this is something we don't deny, you cannot avoid it having the dogs we had.

Mr Spooner then questioned the police officer Lawrence. During the questioning Lawrence claimed that "every time they went into our property they sought permission and was granted this". Yet this is contradicted in the video the RSPCA shot showing Bashford walking up and opening and walking into the fenced off property without either seeking or gaining permission. Again this is perjury, by Lawrence this time a serving police officer, proven by theRSPCA's own video. lawrence also only turned his body cam on once inside the property which is against usage policy of a body cam.
PC Lawrence stated that i had given him permission to enter the property, which was an absolute fabrication, I was on the corded landline telephone at the time lawrence arrived at the property. Although he himself never noted the time he arrived, RSPCA officer Levesley did, at the time of his arrival and indeed either side of that time I was on the landline corded phone in the front room, this can be bared out by an itemised telephone bill. Further as per pace, Lawrence should not have entered and searched the property if permission was given whilst under duress, in his own statement Lawrence states he asked me if i needed a paramedic, thus proving I was under considerable duress. Lawrence was not within his remit to either begin nor start a search in such circumstances.

PC Lawrence failed in his duty of a serving police officer to adhere to PACE 5.1 Subject to paragraph 5.4, if it is proposed to search premises with the consent of a person entitled to grant entry the consent must, if practicable, be given in writing on the

Notice of Powers and Rights before the search.

The officer must make any necessary enquiries to be satisfied the person is in a position to give such consent. (See Notes 5A and 5B.) and 5.2 Before seeking consent the officer in charge of the search shall state the purpose of the

proposed search and its extent. This information must be as specific as possible,

particularly regarding the articles or persons being sought and the parts of the premises

to be searched. The person concerned must be clearly informed they are not obliged to

consent, that any consent given can be withdrawn at any time, including before the

search starts or while it is underway and anything seized may be produced in evidence.

If at the time the person is not suspected of an offence, the officer shall say this when

stating the purpose of the search.

5.3 An officer cannot enter and search or continue to search premises under paragraph 5.1

if consent is given under duress or withdrawn before the search is completed.

5.4 It is unnecessary to seek consent under paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 if this would cause

disproportionate inconvenience to the person concerned

as shown above in BOLD type pc Lawrence's failure to adhere to PACE 5.3 is proven within his own statement when he states he asked Miss Wiggin if she needed a paramedic, this without question show she was under a huge amount of duress during Lawrences time at miss wiggins home and therefore this proves without a doubt that the judge was therefore wrong to believe Lawrences testimony that he was acting legally at all times.

As clearly stated in the above highlighted text Lawrence did not adhere to PACE and therefore was indeed guilty of misconduct in public office, which is "malfeance" and carries a harsh punishment, such as a prison sentence. However the presiding judge again failed in his duty to question Lawrences evidence and given the evidence against him charge him of contempt of court at least.

The Rspca's vet witness was next to give evidence, and she infact apologised to me for her verbal assault on me in her statement, this was not enough as she also clearly committed perjury in her evidence during the magistrates court trial. Yet once again no action was taken against her. She also wrote a s18.5 to have the dogs seized WITHOUT examining any of the dogs in situ, as is a requirement for the issuing of such a certificate.

None of the dogs were examined prior to them being seized and it was not until later that they were examined at this occurred at the practice of this vet, who was on the RSPCA's payroll, therefore using this vet was a conflict of interest, which once again the judge failed to address.

She also claimed that I had cleaned up using bleach, as previously mentioned this was not so and Hamilton mysteriously added this whilst giving evidence, yet nothing was mentioned in her statement, again added to make it sound worse than it actually was, another case of perverting the course of justice with a false statement, not once did the presiding judge ask or in anyway seek an explanation from Hamilton. 

On the third day of the appeal, the designated court room had technical issues with the microphones etc and so the days proceedings were moved at last minute to Stoke On Trent crown court.

 I was the first to give evidence on this day, throughout my time in the dock the prosecution barrister repeatedly called me a liar. I was being asked about why I did not groom my dogs myself, my barrister tried to pass them letters from groomers, but their barrister just shoved his hand and the evidence away, although this was obvious to the judge he never once asked what was going on or what my barrister was trying to give to the prosecution.

This was evidence that we had dogs groomed just before they were taken and had appointments booked for the week or so after, yet this was NOT seen by the judge what so ever. The prosecutions repeated taunts of calling me a liar got so bad my brother actually stood up to protest, had we been calling them liars no doubt we would have been told to shut up and apologise, it seemed they could say whatever they wanted but we could not say anything. We were NOT given the chance to state what had happened through our eyes contrary to the human rights act "right to a fair and just trial". 

I gave evidence that Terrie Colwell was the owner of the pups on the property and I was looking after them for her whilst she was ill, again the prosecution claimed I was lying. My barrister had written evidence from Terrie Colwell, stating what I said to be correct and also an email reply from the RSPCA when Terrie contacted them about them pups. Once again this evidence did not see the light of day and the prosecution carried on with their accusations of me being a liar,

On the fourth day of the trial is was to be my brothers turn to give evidence, again the allocated court room was not available and we were moved to another room which was vacant.

My brother was told by the prosecution that he could ONLY answer the questions they asked when he tried to give his account of the day, (again contrary to the human rights act "right to a fair and just trial"), it was clear we were NOT going to be allowed to give our account of the day to the court, therefore the only evidence they heard was from the prosecution. At some point my brother pointed out that we had NOT wavered from our statements at all, the judge stated he did not have or had not seen our statements, this was a flaw of our defence who had failed to present any of our evidence, nor arrange for any witnesses to be present, this obviously hampered our defence. My brother was once again given a photo book of the dogs and asked to pick his dogs out. Once again his dogs were NOT present in the book he was shown and therefore he could not pick them out. The prosecution made a big deal of this, stating ‘you can't even pick your own dogs out’. I had said in court ‘your dogs aren't in there’, once again the judge did nothing and allowed the prosecution to question my brother on his dogs who were NOT in the photo book he was shown. It seems this was a deliberate ploy by the prosecution to mislead the court, something the judge again failed to pick up on or question. 
On what was scheduled to be the final day of the trial the prosecution and our defence barrister gave their closing submissions, at one point RSPCA inspector Davies spoke out to say they had new evidence and proceeded to tell the court that pups had been born whilst our dogs were in the "care" of the RSPCA. This was NOT challenged as it was not new evidence but instead a ploy to make things seem worse again. It had already been stated that there were dogs that were pregnant that had been seized and as we were being charged with section 9 failure to provide a clean and safe environment this was not relevant to the case, but it seemed the judge was only too happy to listen to Davies.

As the time was getting on the judge stated that we would have to come back for the verdict on another day, my brother stated he would need to clear time off work, again the judge did not care about this. The appeal had already lasted longer than the original trial which had consisted of 2 days, this appeal was now going on for a fifth day.
On the final day after the Judge and his two magistrates had deliberated over the verdict, we were recalled into the court room.

It was blatantly obviously by his conduct throughout that in his mind we were guilty and it had the feelings of merely going through the rest of the process before he passed sentence. This was to be the case, the judge claimed that he had listened to RSPCA officer Crutchley, who had visited our premises only a few weeks prior and stated that everything was fine, yet astonishingly the judge claimed that something must have gone terribly wrong in the proceeding weeks. 

For the things to have gone so far wrong as the RSPCA portrayed, it could not have possibly happened in that short space of time. Crutchley finding things to be fine and satisfactory, yet Bashford and Levesley claiming to have found a faeces ridden urine soaked premises. Which they failed to film or take samples of what they had claimed was present, WHY?. This meant their only evidence was hearsay evidence, which they could not even agree on whilst giving evidence on oath.

We next took our case to a judicial review in Birmingham. We had to send in a skeleton argument and put forward the evidence. We did this and my brother represented us at the review (JR), the judge praised the skeleton argument my brother put forward and said although he could not change anything sentence wise, he stated that had he taken the case and was presented with the evidence from both parties he would not have found us guilty, however he couldn't do anything as a (JR) is was only for points of law. At the time of the (JR) we did not realise that there WERE actually points of law concerning the police officer and his failure to adhere to PACE. There was also the matter of the judge giving a conditional discharge with other punishments such as a deprivation order which does not relate to the AWA 2006 but rather to offences such as driving, therefore he was not within his remit to give such, as a conditional discharge is something given on the previso that the case would receive a punishment if during the discharge time another offence was committed.
As the JR could not help us we were told that we could go to the CCRC (criminal case review board), we did this and sent a detailed case file to them, it was passed on to a case manager to review however once again we drew a blank as they told us they would not be returning the case to court as there was no new evidence to change the verdict. Despite the fact we included a carers log which was unavailable to us at the time of the trial or appeal, in the carers log the carer who visited on the morning of the RSPCA's raid stated in the log that my mother Mrs Struk had suffered bad incontinence and needed cleaning, she had got faeces on her chair, this would account for the smell of faeces described but could not be varified with samples. It was the same with the urine as she had a urine infection which left a strong smell of urine, it was due to this the carer had asked for us to get a doctor out to visit my mother. Something which I had stated from the off and the reason why I could not allow the RSPCA in. This only goes to back up what I had said all along, that I did not allow, willingly, in any way shape or form, entrance to my home to the RSPCA nor the police officer, it also backs up what I have said in my statement and whilst giving my evidence at court, yet the judge choose to disbelieve me. However this log book backed up what I had said, but for some unknown reason the CCRC didn't think it merited being returned to court despite this being crucial new evidence.

We were Informed by someone who is studying law that when we were given a conditional discharge at court that there should have been no other punishments for an AWA 2006 case, i.e. deprivation order, costs, ban of keeping dogs, however despite several letters and emails to courts etc, no one seems to know the answer one way or another, we have a detailed piece by this person detailing as to why it was not in the remit of the judge/magistrate to give a conditional discharge along with other things which were clearly deemed as punishments. 

Ever since we lost at the appeal we have been looking at avenues to pursue in order to get our case returned to court so has to acquire a just and fair hearing. We decided to apply once again to the CCRC on the severity of the sentence we received, for what was even acknowledged by both courts as a minor offence, (we refute there was an offence at all).

We compiled what we considered to be severe cruelty cases and the lack of punishment handed out to the perpetrators compared to what we endured, especially at the hands of the appeal judge. 

Once again the CCRC did not want to know despite it being outlined clearly that even, had there been an offence the court clearly found it to be minor, but decided to give out severe punishments that it did not warrant. This was clearly down to the RSPCA who asked for many thousands of pounds of costs for boarding of the dogs etc, despite the fact that they never were asked to provide an itemised account of the charges for such, therefore their demands were never questioned just like their hearsay evidence.

We also tried to get justice for the police officers disregard for pace and his failure to adhere to it, which is clearly a breach of his duties and a police officer doing such is a serious offence, "misconduct in public office" which is known as malfeance and carries such serious punishments as a prison sentence. We constantly applied to the IOPCC for this "officer" to be held responsible for his failure to adhere to pace resulting in our dogs being seized, however the IOPCC failed and decided not to pursue him, citing that my brother had already agreed to it being dealt by local resolution. The local resolution which he had agreed to has NOT been followed up and there is NOTHING on the police files pertaining to it, or indeed anything that happened on the day of the seizure. This can be verified as I requested my data held by Staffs police under the data protection act and they stated there was nothing held on me, which cannot be true, the said police officer attended court as a witness for the prosecution. Yet there was NOTHING held on file, NOTHING. clearly Staffordshire police are a corrupt force, covering up misconduct their "officers" are involved in. It also is clear that the IOPCC are NOT capable of investigating wrong doing by police officers, as they refused to pursue what PC Lawrence was clearly and indisputably guilty of , this has been a long story and as yet there is no ending which see's justice done either for ourselves or more importantly our dogs, who have been snatched from their home, a home they knew since they were pups and separated from their friends in the process. Heaven knows how their heads must have been and all this from a charity that is supposed to care for animals, its obvious they simply don't, whatsoever.

We continue to fight on in what seems a never ending search for justice.

A few further notes

1.. Chicken feet dog treats and dog bones which were given to the dogs as treats from local pet shops were classed that I was feeding the dogs raw animal parts by the RSPCA "officers" in their statements.

2..We had a garden swing which the canopy had broken off in winds and was taken to the local tip. The RSPCA claimed this was broken garden furniture and was an hazard to the dogs, which clearly wasn't as the canopy was broken off several feet off the ground nowhere near where the dogs could reach.

3.. By the wall near the back door was a radiator cover which was made of compressed cardboard (MDF), this had been out in a rain shower and was wet, therefore like wet paper, no danger to anyone. However the RSPCA claimed this was a danger to the dogs and could cut them, I've never seen anyone get cut with wet paper in my life but they were claiming it could.

4..The RSPCA "officers" claimed in their statements that there was no clean water anywhere in the garden. Yet their own photographs clearly showed a large bone shaped pool full of clean water put out that morning, this is another case for perjury which again was over looked by the court. 

5..In their Statements and their testimony they claimed that 6 dogs had eye ulcers and were taken to the vet, during a call I made to the vet, (which I had recorded), the vet clearly stated she had only seen one dog, which was the one eyed shih tzu already mentioned earlier.

6..They also claimed they (our dogs) were matted and emaciated yet we have another recording (of a phone call to the Foxtwood kennels owner) who stated that the dogs had been well fed and well looked after and he had groomed them himself 5 weeks after they were taken to his kennels Had they been matted they would have needed urgent grooming the day they were seized, yet here was the man who owned the kennels where they were being kept clearly stating they were only groomed 5 WEEKS after they had arrived.

7..My elderly house bound mother was so upset by her home being invaded the way it was and the dogs being taken that she was in tears constantly crying for the dogs, (we have video's of this), even after she was taken into hospital she continued to cry for the dogs which was told to us by her doctor.

8..Whilst at Foxtwood kennels they had mixed uncastrated and unspayed dogs together and seemed to have put all the ones who had been castrated and spayed in together in various pens. 

9..Incredibly, during the beginning of trial at magistrates court the judge Shamin Quereshi, asked the RSPCA solicitor Paul Taylor, (prosecution), what he suggests he should charge us with as there was no neglect or suffering involved, Taylor responded unsuitable environment. 
 

10..The appeal was scheduled for 5 days, on the last day the judge Michael Stephens, stated we would be required to return again on the following Monday, (this was on the Friday), for sentencing. He already knew I was booked in for a consultation for an operation at hospital on that day and with the lateness of him stating we would need to return the following Monday it was now too late to reschedule the appointment. Therefore I would have to miss it and have to wait months for another one, my brother who was working also needed to obtain time off work and again due to the timing of being made aware of the need to return on the Monday, he could not do this as the human resources staff who books days off had already gone home for the weekend.

11..Due to the everything I was put through on the day of the seizure and subsequent media witch hunt, which had included us being sent death threats etc, I have been diagnosed with high blood pressure and PTSD.I have flash backs and nightmares constantly, I wake up screaming, I also suffer anxiety and depression because of what happened, I have break downs constantly,  my heart got torn out that day.

12.. In 2022 we applied to Stafford crown court for a case stated, the application was sent via recorded delivery, we had not heard back so I called them up and was told that they could not find the application, even though it had been signed for by the court. How could such an application be lost?, or was it, or is it just another example of the courts being corrupt, I know what it points to.

13..In court I was constantly being called filthy by the RSPCA solicitor for having a full recycled bin in our home which was due to be put out that night ready for collection the next morning.

14..In court on oath Bashford kept saying none of the dogs had ever had human contact, again this was perjury, as I had my data from the RSPCA which stated in it that they had noted seeing me entering dog shows.

15...I had my own groom room in our garden, which I used in between taking the dogs to the groomers if needed. I used to enter dog shows quite often, but this groom room was not photographed by the RSPCA, surprise surprise!

16...Bashford, police officer Lawrence and vet assistant Hamilton were all facebook friends at the time, this is conflict of interest and again this was not mentioned in court no matter how we tried to push it, we even gave solicitor screen shots proving this, but again he went against our wishes and refused to show it.

17..We have had death threats and hate mail in the post and also via the internet. 

18,,Our solicitor, Nigel Weller, mentioned in court that the tiles on the kitchen floor, that you can clearly see the white lines between the tiles proving the floor was clean, Hamilton claimed I moped the floor with bleach, when in factI was constantly on the phone to try and get my brother home. I had no time to mop any floors and bleach I never use as it affects my brother also bleach can burn dogs feet.

19..At appeal the judge trebled everything from what the sentence was at trial, lncluding 5 deprivation orders.. 1 for my 18 adult dogs, 1 for my brothers 3 adult dogs, 1 for the 8 eight week old puppies who belonged to Terrie Colwell, 1 for the puppies born in the kennels, and 1 for the 2 dogs I was looking after for a friend at the time.

20,, The appeal judge only gave us less than 1 hour, in rush hour, to get home and get my friends 2 dogs out of the house or else the RSPCA will take them he said.

21,,The appeal judge said in court he will allow the RSPCA to go to our house any time they wanted so they can search.

22,,It got so bad that every time we went out of our house, even if we just went to the shop, we sellotaped every door in the house in fear that RSPCA got in while we were out.

23.. We have an email from the RSPCA that they will give Terrie her puppies back, but only if we signed over all our adults. 

24.. Our dogs never slept without the lights and tv turned on, it breaks my heart to think they wouldnt have the lights or tv on in the kennels.

25,,,I wasnt allowed to see my chihuahua after Davies heard me mention my chihuahua by name to my brother, he shouted to Bashford we now have the name of the chihuahua, it’s Trixie, write that down.

26..My wish has always been for all my dogs to be buried with me and RSPCA denied me that wish.

27..RSPCA stated in court that the doggie sand pit was used as a toilet by the dogs, their own pictures shown lovely clean fresh sand and no dogs mess in sight.

 28....In the picture RSPCA used for the media, the wire ring was in a pile of rubbish ready to be taken up the tip, (this was from an old doggie play tent), the brick was from our border wall in the garden and the Buddha statue had always been in our garden border, so how they landed up in the picture is a mystery ...or is it?! .