SIR: I have to write in answer to P G Evans, RSPCA. The way he writes that I naturally believe all I hear smacks to me as if he is saying I am ignorant of all facts and what he really means is I only believe what I want to.

I can assure you this is not so. I got some "facts" from a person who knows what happened with these dogs. It is true a lot were left behind in filth and pain.

While I don't wish to get into any arguments with the RSPCA, I still defend what I say in this case - the job, which was to supposedly put the welfare of the criminals first, wasn't done properly and if being 'well intentioned' is classed as 'interfering' by the RSPCA, then so be it. And I still applaud those who interfere for without those people the poor dogs would probably not be here at all now. Also, I don't see how such a large organisation like the RSPCA has got where it is today being "totally dependent" only on public donation. I was pleased that Mrs S Robinson also wrote an article to the BEN on this matter. I agree with everything she says, one point in particular - the law is an ass. This everyone should know just by reading any court cases in the papers today.

C Parkinson

Laycock Avenue,

Bolton

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.