This relates to:

Mr Phil K Johnson of Manchester

The previous Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Reverend Dr Rowan Williams, who stepped down at the end of 2012.

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA)

Mr B referred to in the two previous articles

Hillside Animal Sanctuary, based near Norwich

The Archbishop's Patronage Secretary, Mr D D Fullarton

The McDonald's group of companies

Mr Peter J Winchester also referred to in the two previous articles

Mr Arthur G Braithwaite also referred to therein

Mr George T Piper referred to in the previous article

The University of Cambridge and, in particular, the Vice- Chancellor, Professor Sir Leszec Borysiewicz

The present Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Reverend Justin Welby

Mr William E ("Bill") Oddie OBE, a well-known broadcaster and a Vice-President of the RSPCA

Mr Richard Howitt, Labour MEP for the East of England and another Vice-President of the RSPCA  

(The above-named are listed in the order in which they are mentioned below.)


On 20 March 2011, Mr Johnson contacted us (through a friend) and, on 22nd, showed us the following correspondence:

From Mr Johnson to the Archbishop

30 November 2010

Your Grace

I note that you are Vice Patron of the RSPCA.

A friend recently suggested that I read an article re: the RC Church on a website called www.cronies.org.uk and I did so but I noticed two other articles (unrelated to the RC Church) on it, showing correspondence to and from a "Mr B".  I don't know who he is and I don't agree with every opinion expressed by him.  (He obviously isn't a Christian.)   However, I expect that you will be as shocked as I was by the responses of the RSPCA to his letters. 

I was also shocked by the information about the RSPCA on the website of Hillside Animal Sanctuary.  (There is a link to this on www.cronies.org.uk.)  I suggest that you raise these matters with the RSPCA.

I wish you a happy Christmas and may the love of Jesus always be with you.

Yours sincerely

P K Johnson

From the Archbishop's Patronage Secretary to Mr Johnson
                                
8 December 2010

Dear P K Johnson

Thank you for your letter of 30 November addressed to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

As you say, the Archbishop is a Vice-Patron of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, but I know you will appreciate that his role does not encompass operational or executive activity within the charity.  This properly comes within the ambit of the RSPCA Council who will no doubt decide, or give directions on, matters of policy.  Our contact with the Society over a number of years leads us to believe that it takes representations made to it seriously and I would encourage you to write to the charity, if you have not already done so, as I feel it ought to be made aware of your concerns.

Yours sincerely

D D Fullarton

From Mr Johnson to the RSPCA

11 January 2011

Dear Sir or Madam

A friend recently suggested that I read an article re: the RC Church on a website called www.cronies.org.uk and I did so but I noticed two other articles (unrelated to the RC Church) on it, showing correspondence to and from a "Mr B".  I don't know who he is but I was shocked by the responses of the RSPCA to his letters and also by the criticism of the RSPCA on the website of Hillside Animal Sanctuary, to which there is a link from www.cronies.org.uk

Do you dispute the accuracy of anything on either of the above websites?  If not, have you anything to say about these scandalous revelations?

Yours sincerely

P K Johnson

From Mr Johnson to the RSPCA

1 February 2011

Dear Sir or Madam

I enclose a copy of a letter I sent you on 11 January 2011.

I have not received a reply.

Yours sincerely

P K Johnson

From Mr Johnson to the Archbishop

10 February 2011

Your Grace

Further to my letter of 30 November 2010 and Mr Fullarton's reply of 8 December 2010 on your behalf, I enclose a copy of a letter I sent to the RSPCA on 11 January 2011 and a copy of a reminder I sent, with a copy of my letter of 11 January 2011, on 1 February 2011.  I have not even received an acknowledgement.

If all the relevant information on www.cronies.org.uk and www.hillside.org.uk is correct and if the RSPCA has received but ignored my letters, God will not be pleased with the RSPCA.  Do you agree?

Yours sincerely

P K Johnson

From the RSPCA to Mr Johnson

18 February 2011

Sir or Madam

Thank you for your letter dated 11 January 2011 and further letter dated 1 February 2011 chasing for a reply.  Firstly, please accept our apologies for the delay in replying to you, but this has been due to an overwhelming increase in the number of animal welfare enquiries received in recent weeks and which, as you can appreciate, must take priority.

Referring to the first of the two items posted on the website, www.cronies.org.uk which relates to correspondence between the RSPCA and a 'Mr B' on the use of Halal meat by McDonald's.  We can only reiterate the content of our replies to Mr B at the time, in that we do not believe that boycotting is an effective means of pressurising for change.  We believe firmly that it is better to work with companies to improve their standards where there may be a requirement to do so.

Although the RSPCA recognises that religious beliefs and practices should be respected, we believe that it is vitally important to ensure that all animals are slaughtered under the most humane conditions possible.  We therefore advocate that animals must be rendered unconscious by stunning before having their throats cut.

We take every opportunity to put forward our view to food retailers and government (both UK and EU) that, to ensure animals do not suffer, they must always be stunned prior to slaughter. We continue to press for changes in legislation that would ensure that all animals are slaughtered as humanely as possible, and are also lobbying for compulsory labelling indicating whether or not meat comes from animals that have been slaughtered without pre-stunning, to allow consumers to make a proper, informed choice about whether or not to buy/eat it.

The second item on the website to which you refer, relates to Hillside Animal Sanctuary. There have been many specific allegations over recent years in nearly every Hillside newsletter, which we have responded to in detail on each occasion. However, rather than provide yet another response that in the end is one organisation's word against another, we hope to clarify what this issue is really about.

It is our belief that Hillside has an agenda totally opposed to all intensive-farming practices.  They clearly feel that by encouraging people not to eat meat they will reduce the suffering endured by the 800 million farm animals bred for consumption every year. The RSPCA has sympathy with this position and also recognises that around six per cent of the population are currently vegetarian or vegan. However, even if there were a doubling of the numbers of vegetarian or vegans in this country there would still be nearly 90% of the population wanting meat in their diet.

It is on this basis that the RSPCA has felt that it must engage with the farmers and the food production industry in order to raise welfare standards across the main species bred for consumption.  We simply could not stand by and do nothing to improve standards for millions of animals.  We believe we have improved standards via our Freedom Food scheme, not only for the 350 million animals currently being raised under the scheme, but also the many millions more benefiting from the adoption of our standards indirectly, both here and abroad.

We also acknowledge that from time to time, because of outbreaks of disease amongst the animals or through incompetence, a very small number of farms fall below the standards we have set.  In these cases, when we are made aware of the circumstances - either through monitoring, by credible complaints from staff, through undercover operations by organisations like Hillside, and if it is a Freedom Food farm - it will be immediately suspended from the scheme, pending investigation.  Where the circumstances are very serious, the RSPCA will undertake its own investigation and if there is sufficient evidence will undertake a prosecution of the people and organisations responsible.

We believe that if Hillside or any other person or organisation who suspect that an animal/animals are suffering they should report these cases immediately to us, to the police or to Trading Standards so that appropriate action can be taken to alleviate any possible suffering straightaway.  Just one incident of animal suffering is sufficient in order to embark upon a prosecution.

Thank you once again for contacting us and we do hope this clarification of the issues from the RSPCA's point of view is helpful in addressing any concerns you may have had.

Yours sincerely
Yasmin Brown
Enquiries Coordinator
RSPCA HQ Advice Team

From Mr. Johnson to the Archbishop

1 March 2011

Your Grace

Further to my letter of 10 February 2011 and enclosures, I have received a letter of 18 February 2011 from the RSPCA and enclose a copy.  I hope that you will not need a commentary on it from me to conclude that it is fundamentally unsatisfactory in several respects.

I believe that God is not pleased with the RSPCA.  Do you agree?

In case you did not receive my letter of 10 February 2011 and enclosures, I enclose copies.

Yours sincerely

P K Johnson

Mr Johnson said that he had still not received a reply.  We found this very interesting but we had no proof that anything from Mr Johnson had been delivered to Lambeth Palace after his letter of 30 November 2010.  We asked him to write again, by Recorded Delivery, enclosing copies of his later letters and enclosures and ensuring that his covering letter listed them all.  On 25 March 2011, we received from him a copy as follows, with a Recorded Delivery receipt dated 24 March 2011:

From Mr Johnson to the Archbishop

24 March 2011

Your Grace

With reference to my letters of 10 February and 1 March 2011 and enclosures, please note that I have still not received a reply.

In case you did not receive my letter of 1 March 2011 and enclosures, I enclose copies.

I hope that you will not only answer the question in my letter of 1 March 2011 but also publish statements on your website re: the important moral issues raised by www.cronies.org.uk and www.hillside.org.uk.

Yours sincerely

P K Johnson

Encs.
Copy of letter of 11 January 2011 from me to the RSPCA
Copy of letter of 1 February 2011 from me to the RSPCA
Copy of letter of 10 February 2011 from me to you
Copy of letter of 18 February 2011 from the RSPCA to me
Copy of letter of 1 March 2011 from me to you

On 31 March 2011, we received from Mr Johnson a copy of a reply, as follows:

28 March 2011

Dear Mr Johnson

Thank you for your letters of 1 and 24 March to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

I attach a copy of a letter dated 24 February which I received from Mr Mark Watts, Chief Executive of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, in which he states that your concerns have been addressed and these were set out in a letter to you from the Society on 18 February.  If you remain dissatisfied with the response, this is a matter for you to take up with the Society direct.  I cannot add anything further to my own letter to you dated 8 December 2010 and as far as this office is concerned the matter is closed.

Yours sincerely

D D Fullarton

Copy: Mr M Watts, RSPCA

Mr Johnson said that the copy of Mr Watts' letter of 24 February had been omitted but that this was not very important.

Despite Mr Johnson's comment in his letter of 1 March 2011 to the Archbishop "I hope that you will not need a commentary on it (the letter from the RSPCA) from me...", we asked Mr Johnson to send us a commentary on it, for publication.  We received one from him, as follows, on 5 April 2011:

It does not answer the question in my letter of 11 January 2011 and it still does not answer the questions, shown on your website, in the letter of 14 October 2008 from "Mr B".  The plain fact is that the RSPCA is not acting transparently.

It is obvious that if the RSPCA were to support appropriate boycotts, the incidences of cruelty and neglect would be reduced.  In 2009, I first heard of the organisation "Naturewatch" and since then I have been acting on its advice to boycott various companies' products. (I had not heard of Hillside Animal Sanctuary at that time.)  Presumably, the RSPCA would say that the Director of Naturewatch (Mr John Ruane) is misguided.  Of course he isn't.  There may not be enough people boycotting a particular company's products to force it to change its policy but the boycott will make the company less likely to fund further objectionable practices and will deter directors and shareholders of other companies from acting in ways unacceptable to Naturewatch.  The RSPCA policy to support no boycotts at all is ridiculous.  I wonder whether the people who control the RSPCA would knowingly buy goods produced by slaves.

Re: the fourth paragraph, I am not against the type of labelling referred to but it would be harmful in some cases.  Some people (rightly described as "crackpots" by Mr Winchester) want meat from inhumanely killed animals.  It should not be available and hence the issue should not arise.  It should be a criminal offence to knowingly possess any product obtained or made from an inhumanely killed animal.

Given that the letter does not dispute the accuracy of anything on www.hillside.org.uk, the fifth paragraph is fatuous.  If the RSPCA maintains that it has responded well to all the allegations made against it by Hillside Animal Sanctuary, it should publish the correspondence on its own website.

Re: the sixth paragraph, my expression of shock in my letter of 11 January 2011 had nothing to do with any genuine disagreement the RSPCA may have had with Hillside Animal Sanctuary on any aspect of policy.  (I am not a vegetarian but I care about animals.)  The information about the RSPCA on www.hillside.org.uk shocked me because it seemed to show that the RSPCA was not acting as if it supported its own published policies and was not adequately using its statutory powers.

Re: the seventh paragraph, I applaud attempts to raise welfare standards by persuasion but it should be accompanied by appropriate boycotts.  As regards "Freedom Food", it appears from www.hillside.org.uk that there have been serious breaches of the rules of the Scheme.  Of course, no reasonable person would ask the RSPCA for an absolute guarantee that every item with a "Freedom Food" label had been produced fully in accordance with the rules but the RSPCA website cites no evidence that such a label is even likely to indicate that the item concerned has been so produced.  Customers who see "Freedom Food" labels may not know that anyone has criticised the Scheme and the RSPCA website does not even mention that Hillside Animal Sanctuary exists.  In the eighth paragraph is a statement "...a very small number of farms fall below the standards we have set" but the letter cites no evidence that only a very small number of farms fall below these standards.  An example of what I would regard as satisfactory evidence would be a signed and dated report from a registered vet, certifying that he or she had made unannounced inspections of at least fifty "Freedom Food" farms chosen at random and found not more than two of them materially in breach of RSPCA welfare standards.  If the RSPCA has such evidence, it should be on the RSPCA website.

In view of the above, I regard the rest of the letter as propaganda.

With the above commentary, Mr Johnson enclosed a copy of a further letter to the Archbishop, as follows:

3 April 2011

Your Grace

I find Mr Fullarton's letter of 28 March 2011, sent on your behalf, very disappointing.

I note that (according to Mr. Fullarton's letter) Mr. Watts' letter states that my concerns have "been addressed".   Whatever that is supposed to mean, I have already sent you copies of the letter of 18 February 2011 from the  RSPCA and, as I have previously stated, I hope that you will not need a commentary on it from me to conclude that it is fundamentally unsatisfactory in several respects.  If you have not reached this conclusion, please let me know.

It would be pointless for me to write to the RSPCA again in relation to the same issues.  You should know that.

With reference to Mr Fullarton's statement "I cannot add anything further...", please explain why he cannot.  Are you under some contractual duty not to comment to me (directly or through Mr Fullarton) on the behaviour of the RSPCA?

Mr Fullarton omitted to attach the copy of Mr Watts' letter.  Please send it.

Yours sincerely

P K Johnson
At our request, Mr B visited us on 7 April 2011.  He read all the papers Mr Johnson had provided and wrote the following:
Mr Johnson is right, of course, that I am not a Christian.  I have no religious beliefs; I think scientifically.

However, I have not come to explain why I have no religious beliefs; I have come to comment on the behaviour of the RSPCA and that of Archbishop Williams in relation to it.


Mr Johnson's commentary on the letter from the RSPCA is excellent.

The Archbishop's failure to answer the question in the letter of 1 March 2011 shows that at least one of the following applied on 28 March 2011:

1. He did not believe that he knew whether God was pleased with the RSPCA.
2. He did not want to answer it.
3. He had a contractual or legal duty not to answer it.
4. He was unaware that he was not answering it.
5. He had not read the letter of 1 March 2011 properly.

On the basis of any of the first three of these possibilities, he shouldn't wear the hat.

Mr Johnson's question in the the penultimate paragraph of his latest letter to the Archbishop is very good. Mr Fullarton's letter of 28 March 2011 does not say "I am unwilling to add anything further...", it says "I cannot add anything further...".  On the basis that this is a statement on behalf of the Archbishop, what could it mean?  

It is obviously not intended to mean that he is physically or mentally unable to do something or that there is some technical problem in the office.  There are only two other types of meaning it could have.  One is as envisaged by Mr Johnson and the other is that the Archbishop's freedom of expression is restricted by an undertaking he has given to a court.

In the absence of any such contractual or legal restriction, the Archbishop (whether or not he has any official influence over the RSPCA) has the same rights as I have to comment, to the RSPCA itself, Mr Johnson, or the public generally on its behaviour and to send it an open letter, asking questions and, in due course, publish the reply or the fact that he has not received one.

His behaviour is farcical; he is supposed to be a source of moral guidance.

In view of the statement "...as far as this office is concerned the matter is closed" at the end of Mr Fullarton's letter of 28 March 2011, we are acting as if Mr Johnson will not receive a reply to his letter of 3 April 2011 but he has promised to let us know as soon as possible if he does.

We intend to invite Mr Winchester, Mr Braithwaite and Mr Piper to comment on this article.

Should the Archbishop regard any of Mr B's comments (or anything else on this website) as unfair or misleading in any way, we invite him to publish his response(s) on his own website.  We intend to write to him tomorrow (13 April 2011) to refer him to this paragraph.

The above text of this article is as published on 12 Ap
ril 2011, except that the list in blue at the top has been updated.


Addendum 19 April 2011

On 13 April 2011, we wrote to the Archbishop as follows:

Dear Sir

We refer to our latest article, which shows, inter alia, letters sent to you by Mr P K Johnson and replies sent on your behalf by Mr D D Fullarton.

Please note that the article includes a letter of 3 April 2011 to you from Mr Johnson and comments made about you by "Mr B".

We draw your attention to the paragraph in bold type at the end of the article.
 
Yours sincerely

The operators of www.cronies.org.uk


Addendum 28 April 2011

On 21 April 2011, Mr Johnson brought to us a reply he had received to his letter of 3 April 2011, with an attached copy of Mr Watts' letter of 24 February 2011 to Mr Fullarton.  They were as follows:

From the Archbishop's Patronage Secretary to Mr Johnson

19 April 2011

Dear Mr Johnson

Thank you for your letter of 3 April to the Archbishop of Canterbury who is in Canterbury until after Easter.

In previous correspondence I have tried to explain the Archbishop's offical role as Vice-Patron of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.  This does not encompass executive, managerial or administrative responsibilities in relation to policy, practical or operational matters.  Furthermore, he is not under any contractual duty not to comment to you or any other correspondent for that matter on activities within the Society.  You will appreciate, therefore, that it is for the charity's Council, trustees and staff to address your concerns.  This is completely outside the Archbishop's remit.  It is for that reason that nothing more can be said or done from this office.

A copy of Mr Watts' letter to me of 24 February, and to which I refer in my letter to you dated 28 March 2011, is attached.

Yours sincerely

D D Fullarton

Copy: Mr M Watts, RSPCA

From the RSPCA to the Archbishop's Patronage Secretary

24 February 2011

Dear Mr Fullarton

Thank you for your letter of 14 February 2011 and for bringing the matter of Mr Johnson's previous correspondence to my attention.

I can confirm that this was received by our Advice team, here at Southwater, and that Mr Johnson's concerns have been addressed in a reply sent to him last week.

Unfortunately due to an increase in the number of animal welfare enquiries received in recent weeks, which I hope you can appreciate are always prioritised when advice is sought or action needs to be taken about a pressing issue, there was an unacceptable delay in replying to Mr Johnson's first letter caused by a backlog of general enquiries about the Society's policies and its work.

Yours sincerely

Mark Watts
Chief Executive

We had already arranged for Mr Winchester, Mr Braithwaite and Mr Piper to visit us on 30 April 2011.  We sent them and Mr B copies of the further items Mr Johnson had brought.


Addendum 6 May 2011

At the end of the previous addendum, we published comments received on 26 April 2011 from Mr B re: the further items Mr Johnson had brought but, on 29 April 2011, we received revised, expanded comments from Mr B, as follows:
 
Mr Fullarton's letter answers Mr Johnson's latest question "Are you under some contractual duty..." but still does not answer the question in Mr Johnson's letter of 1 March 2011.  Furthermore, it contains an interesting example of faulty logic.  Consider the statements "This is completely outside the Achbishop's remit.  It is for that reason that nothing more can be said or done from this office."  The Archbishop's Vice Patronage of the RSPCA may not give rise to any remit to comment on its behaviour but this does not affect his rights to do so in his capacity as Archbishop or in his personal capacity.  The letter purports, in an invalid way, to justify the Archbishop's failure (inter alia) to answer the question in Mr Johnson's letter of 1 March 2011.  Furthermore, the statement "It is for that reason ..." (my italics) implies that the Archbishop does not claim to have any other reason not to answer it and hence, in effect, admits that he has no legal duty, in his capacity as Archbishop, to refrain from answering it.  The implication that he is not entitled, in his capacity as Archbishop, to publish a statement that God is, or is not, pleased with the RSPCA is false (and bizarre).  During my visit on 7 April 2011, I described some of his rights.  These apply both in his capacity as Archbishop and in his personal capacity.  His post as Archbishop is subject to English law, which contains no relevant restriction on his rights in that capacity.  In his personal capacity, he has these rights under the European Convention.  In particular, in either capacity, he is entitled to answer the question in Mr Johnson's letter of 1 March 2011.

If he believes that I am mistaken regarding the legal position, he should quote, on his website, a law which, in his opinion, conflicts with something I have stated and write to his MP calling for that law to be changed.


Mr Watts' letter of 24 February 2011 to Mr Fullarton is evasive and unsurprising on the basis of correspondence previously shown to me.  As regards the excuse for the failure to respond to Mr Johnson's letter of 11 January 2011 until 18 February 2011, which was four days after the date of Mr Fullarton's letter to Mr Watts*, I leave it to readers to judge whether the RSPCA would ever have written to Mr Johnson at all had Mr Fullarton not written to Mr Watts.

*We do not have a copy of this but the date of it is clear from the reply.

        
Mr Winchester, Mr Braithwaite and Mr Piper visited us, as arranged, on 30 April 2011.  Mr Braithwaite sat in an armchair and seemed to go to sleep!  A conversation took place as follows:

Mr Piper:  It's a strange coincidence.  A friend of mine works at Lambeth Palace.  He told me about the correspondence before I saw it on the website.  He thinks God isn't pleased with Dr Williams.

Mr Winchester:  Well, I'm not pleased with Dr Williams but can your friend read God's mind?

Mr Piper:  Let me explain.  Dr Williams usually goes into the kitchen before breakfast and recites the Lord's Prayer.  My friend has often watched him.  Last summer, my friend described what had happened on a typical morning.  As soon as Dr Williams had recited "Give us this day our daily bread", there it was - top quality organic six-grain wholemeal - enough for everyone in the palace.  It even came with a tub of organic non-hydrogenated sunflower margarine.  That's not all.  One morning last autumn, there was a power cut and it was still quite dark when he came into the kitchen.  He took an oil lamp out of a cupboard and sang the hymn "Sing Hosanna to the King".  As soon as he'd sung "Give me oil in my lamp", a can of "3 in 1" oil appeared above the lamp and poured oil into it.

Mr Braithwaite (seeming to wake up):  Who sang a hymn in the kitchen?

Mr Piper:  The Archbishop of Canterbury.

Mr Braithwaite:  Rowan Atkinson?
 
Mr Piper (to Mr Braithwaite):  No, Rowan Williams.  Rowan Atkinson's a professional comedian.
 
Mr Winchester:  I wonder whether my local vicar has similar powers.  I once overheard his daughter saying to one of her friends "Dad works miracles in the kitchen."

Mr Braithwaite:  That's very interesting.  I know a vicar who often goes into a cafe at about eight o'clock in the morning.  There's a notice in the window "Create your own breakfast."

Mr Winchester:  Dr Williams might have a contract with McDonald's.

Mr Piper (to Mr Winchester):  Mr Fullarton's statement, in his latest letter, "... he is not under any contractual duty ..." implies that Dr Williams couldn't have a contract of the type I think you have in mind.

Mr Winchester:  What if that isn't true?  Look at the last statement in his second paragraph; it's nonsense.  Why should we believe the other statement?

Mr Braithwaite (to Mr Winchester):  You're barking up the wrong tree.  It isn't plausible that he could have a contract with McDonald's.

Mr Winchester (to Mr Braithwaite):  Why not?

Mr Braithwaite (to Mr Winchester):  The food's not good enough.

Mr Winchester (to Mr Piper):  Does your friend know why Mr Fullarton writes rubbish?

Mr Piper (to Mr Winchester):  He's not sure but there's a "Buy one, get one free" offer on communion wine.

Mr Winchester (to Mr Piper):  You were talking about the bread.

Mr Piper:  Ah, yes.  On 9 December 2010, the day after Mr Fullarton first wrote to Mr Johnson, supermarket "value" bread appeared.  Since 29 March 2011, none has appeared at all and he's having bread delivered from a local bakery.

Mr Braithwaite (to Mr Piper):  Does your friend know why Mr Fullarton didn't send a second letter earlier?

Mr Piper (to Mr Braithwaite):  He thinks Dr Williams is keeping down costs on stationery and postages and allocating extra staff time to fundraising.  The recession's reduced the incomes of many religious bodies.  He hasn't been able to raise as much by passing the big hat around the cathedral.  Over two years ago, he sent circulars to all other members of the clergy, asking them to cut costs and raise money.  A vicar wrote to him, suggesting that he set up a company to make a new product - Wenceslas brand electrically heated socks.
 
Mr Braithwaite (to Mr Piper):  Did he do that?

Mr Piper (to Mr Braithwaite):  No. Mr Fullarton said that it would be outside his remit.

Mr Winchester:  My local vicar received one of the circulars.  He took a course on gas fitting and now works part time on gas fitting jobs to help pay the bills for the church.  He was lucky to have just qualified when the central heating boiler in the church started to produce terrible emissions.
 
Mr Braithwaite:  Holy smoke!

Mr Piper (to Mr Winchester):  What did he do?

Mr Winchester (to Mr Piper):  He gave it a service.  Incidentally, he's very versatile.  He's an all round "Do it thyself" man.

Mr Braithwaite (to Mr Piper):  Do you know whether Dr Williams is a "Do it thyself" man?

Mr Piper (to Mr Braithwaite):  Well, if you ask him to write to the RSPCA, he'll say "Do it thyself."

Mr Winchester:  Have either of you spoken to Mr Johnson?

Mr Braithwaite:  Oh, yes.  Only yesterday he said that he was considering further action.

Mr Winchester (to Mr Braithwaite):  Did he give any indication of what he might do?

Mr Braithwaite (to Mr Winchester):  Well, he's a devout Christian.

Mr Winchester (to Mr Braithwaite):  Will that make any difference?

Mr Braithwaite (to Mr Winchester):  I think so.  He said that he might publicly burn a print-out of the Archbishop's website, in the centre of Manchester.

Mr Winchester (shaking his head):  I don't think he should.  He'd offend people.

Mr Piper:  I agree.  For example, he'd offend members of Friends of the Earth.  He should publicly put it into one of the Council's blue bins, to be recycled.

THEY KID YOU, WE THINK.


Addendum 8 December 2011

Hillside Animal Sanctuary has published further scathing criticisms of the RSPCA in relation to the "Freedom Food" scheme and one of the establishments referred to, namely Manor Farm, Yaxham, Norfolk, has been the subject of a long article headed "PIG SICKENING" in "The People" dated 18 September 2011.


Addendum 29 June 2012

On 16 March 2012, Dr Williams announced that he intended to step down from his post of Archbishop at the end of 2012.  He gave no reason but, according to news reports, he has been promised the post of Master of Magdalene College at the University of Cambridge from January 2013.

On 15 June 2012, Mr Johnson gave us copies of letters as follows,
to the Vice-Chancellor of the University, Professor Sir Leszec Borysiewicz:

 
23 March 2012

Dear Professor Borysiewicz

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams ("Dr Williams")

I refer to the article entitled "The Archbishop of Canterbury and the RSPCA"** on www.cronies.org.uk.

According to a news report (by Reuters) on 16 March 2012, Dr Williams is due to become Master of Magdalene College in January 2013.  I do not consider him suitable for the post.  Do you?

Yours sincerely

P K Johnson

**This was the title of the article prior to 29 June 2012.



09 May 2012

Dear Professor Borysiewicz

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams ("Dr Williams")

Please note that I have not received a reply to my letter of 23 March 2012 (copy attached).

Yours sincerely

P K Johnson


23 May 2012

Dear Professor Borysiewicz

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams ("Dr Williams")

Please note that I have still not received a reply to my letter of 23 March 2012 (copy attached), despite my reminder of 09 May 2012.

Yours sincerely

P K Johnson

 
Mr Johnson also gave us a Certificate of Posting for an item sent to the University on 9 May 2012 and a Recorded Delivery receipt for an item sent to it on 23 May 2012.  The Royal Mail website showed that the latter had been delivered on 24 May 2012.  He said that he had still not received a reply.

We have invited Mr Winchester, Mr Braithwaite and Mr Piper to visit us again to comment.

  

Addendum 16 November 2012

Mr Winchester, Mr Braithwaite and Mr Piper visited us on the evening of 14 August 2012^ and a conversation took place as follows:

Mr Winchester: 
Mr Johnson seems to have created a political hot potato.

Mr Braithwaite:  
Political hot potatoes are often associated with cronyism.

Mr Piper:  
I agree.  We should often remind people of that but Mr Johnson's letters interest me not only politically but personally.  My son Maurice and his partner Juliette both lecture on Plant Sciences at Cambridge University.

Mr Winchester:
  That's interesting.  I often go to Cambridge.  Perhaps I could meet them there.

Mr Piper (to Mr Winchester):  I'll give you their 'phone number.  (He writes on a piece of paper and gives it to Mr
Winchester.)

Mr Braithwaite (to Mr Piper): 
George, have you mentioned to them the latest addendum to www.cronies.org.uk?

Mr Piper:  
Oh, yes - in an e-mail a few days ago.  Yesterday, at about 8pm, Maurice sent a very interesting reply, quoting people he'd overheard in a pub called "The King Edward". 

Mr Winchester: 
The King Edward?  I've often been there.  I usually go to Cambridge on business on a Friday and call in for a beer and a plate of chips and to bring my records up to date.  I like the chips.  The landlord's deputy, called "Ernest", fries them.  They're made from potatoes of the variety "Almond". 

Mr Braithwaite:
 That reminds me.  I was talking to a Mr Almond yesterday in a pub in Manchester.  I've known him for years.  He's good in many ways but he has a closed mind on some issues.  He wouldn't listen to my criticism of Dr Williams and described him as "wonderful".

Mr Winchester:  
Mr Almond sounds like a nut.

Mr Braithwaite: 
Dr Williams and several RSPCA officials should be questioned in public.

Mr Winchester:  
They should be grilled.

Mr Piper (to Mr Winchester):  I agree, Pete but you were telling us about The King Edward.

Mr Winchester: 
Ah, yes.  The landlord's a great innovator.  He makes good use of the pub.  For example, he rents a space in a rear corner to an Irish cobbler called Paddy Doyle.  I know Paddy well.  He usually works there from noon until 4pm and from 8pm until 10pm and often eats chips fried by Ernest.  He mentioned, last Friday, that he'd stopped frying chips at home, further to an incident when the oil had caught fire, he'd used a fire extinguisher, hadn't been able to put the fire out and had called the fire brigade.  He said "Everyone who uses oil in a kitchen should think of fire."  That reminds me.  He also mentioned that Dr Williams had been there several times this year!

Mr Piper:  That's fascinating!  I'll tell Maurice.  Dr Williams probably meets University officials there.  My
friend who works at Lambeth Palace has told me that Dr Williams often meets officials in pubs, for example RSPCA  officials in a pub in Horsham.  By coincidence, I had a drink there in summer 2009, long before my friend had mentioned it to me and it reminded me of animals and the RSPCA.

Mr Braithwaite:  
Could you explain that?

Mr Piper: 
It's called "The Cock and Bull".
(to Mr Winchester): 
Pete, had you finished talking about The King Edward?

Mr Winchester:
 No.  I'll tell you more about it.  There's a grand piano a few metres in front of Paddy's work space and a pianist sometimes comes to play it.  He particularly likes the works of Chopin but he displays a notice "You are welcome to request a melody."  Paddy said that, on one occasion, Mr Fullarton had come with Dr Williams and had had a request played - "Guide Me O Thou Great Redeemer".  Ernest's very interested in local history.  He has hundreds of old photographs of local scenes.  Some of them show one of his great grandfathers in the Home Guard.  One shows a young man in an early police constable's uniform.  With it, Ernest keeps a local newspaper from 1870, containing an article about a robbery at The King Edward.  He seems fairly sure that a policeman mentioned in the article, Sergeant A Murphy, was one of his great great grandfathers and that the photograph shows him a few years earlier.  On the back is written "Albert in his peeler's uniform".  There are three barmaids, "Annabelle", "Linda" and "Nicola".  They're the hottest things in town.  They all have South American ancestors and often talk about their roots.  Annabelle's new.  She has smooth, dark skin and big, brown eyes.  Linda's the one who attracts most attention from men; they call her "Golden Wonder".  However, Nicola's my favourite.  She looks like the Mona Lisa and she's well educated.  She has a degree in oceanography and she's done scientific research on climate change on the coast of Brazil.  She's written a book called "The Hot Atlantic of the Future".    
  
Mr Braithwaite (to Mr Piper):  
Well, George, that was very interesting but what did your son overhear?

Mr Piper (taking a laptop out of his briefcase and pressing keys on it):  
I'll read the whole e-mail to you.

"Dear Dad

Thanks for your e-mail.  I've discussed the latest addendum to www.cronies.org.uk with Juliette and two other lecturers.  We're all disappointed with Professor Borysiewicz but there's been an interesting development.  About  three hours ago, I was in a pub called "The King Edward".  The public area is in two parts, with the bar between them.  I don't know who was on the other side of the bar but, as usual at that time of day, there were only a few customers on the side where I was.  They were all talking about Professor Borysiewicz!  I joined in.  A man said "He should be given a roasting" and I said that I agreed.  A few seconds later, I heard a man on the other side of the bar, say "I've had a discussion with my superior and I'm confident that we'll be able to replace that old Pole easily."  You could have heard a pin drop.  I presumed that he was talking to two other people, because he continued "I know you're both due to attend a seminar tomorrow morning but I'd like to meet you here again at one o'clock to discuss the procedure."  I went to the other side of the bar but nobody was there.  They must have just left.  I turned round and saw that the other customers had followed me.  I returned to the other side of the bar.  The barmaids had all gone but I saw the landlord.  I said "Excuse me, Mr Chippendale, did you hear that man on the other side of the bar, talking about replacement of Professor Borysiewicz?"  "Yes, sir," he replied, " but I couldn't see who was speaking.  I'm wondering what's going on."  I was so intrigued that I left without my jacket.  I walked home and didn't realise, until I'd almost reached the door, that I didn't have my keys and that I'd left my jacket in the pub, with my keys, wallet and diary in the pockets.  Fortunately, Juliette was in.  She said that the landlord's deputy had 'phoned to say that I'd left my jacket and that he'd found our 'phone number in my diary.  I rang him back immediately.  I said "Thank you very much, Mr Fryer" and explained what had caused me to forget my jacket.  He said that he'd been in the kitchen and hadn't heard anyone talking about Professor Borysiewicz.  I returned to collect my jacket and was relieved to find that nothing was missing from it.  I'm planning to go again tomorrow, shortly before one o'clock, with Juliette and the other lecturers.  I 'phoned Mr Johnson about two hours ago to let him know what I'd heard.  He thanked me enthusiastically.  He said that he had a friend in Cambridge and would pass on the information to him.

Best wishes, Maurice

PS  Don't forget.  Eat a crisp raw carrot every day."

Mr Braithwaite:
 That was very interesting but it's nearly nine o'clock.  I hope he has more news.

Mr Piper (looking at his laptop):  
Well, there's nothing further from him yet.  I'll send him a text message.  (He takes a mobile 'phone out of a pocket and presses buttons on it.)

Mr Winchester (to Mr Piper):  
Presumably, George, before the latest addendum was added to www.cronies.org.uk, your son knew of the decision to appoint Dr Williams as Master of Magdalene College.

Mr Piper:
  Oh, yes.  He said that he'd heard rumours about the background to it.  One was that Professor Borysiewicz had met a film director to discuss the possibility of using parts of the University as sets.  This might be related to something I'd heard from my friend who works at Lambeth Palace, namely that Dr Williams had attended an audition.

Mr Braithwaite:
 The University authorities are probably trying to find ways to make money.

Mr Piper:
 Yes.  The University's financial position has been seriously affected by the recession.  Another rumour Maurice mentioned was that, at Dr Williams' suggestion, the University had been economising on stationery and postages.

Mr Winchester (to Mr Piper): 
Your son might have sent you another e-mail.

Mr Piper (looking at his laptop and pressing keys on it):  
Ah, yes.  I'll read it out.
 

"Dear Dad

Thanks for the reminder but, when I received it, I was already typing an e-mail to you.  I went back to The King
Edward as planned, with Juliette and the other lecturers but it was crowded and there were, I estimated, two hundred people on the road and footpath in front of it.  We eventually reached the place where, I thought, the man had been speaking.  A cobbler called Mr Doyle was working, nearby, in a corner.  I don't know him well but he always says "Hello" when he sees me.  I described to him, in whispers, what I'd heard yesterday and he whispered back "Professor Borysiewicz is here - with the Archbishop of Canterbury!  They're standing beside the piano."  There's a grand piano in the pub, a few metres from Mr Doyle's work space.  I looked towards it and saw them, each wearing sunglasses and a wide-rimmed hat and holding a half pint glass of beer.  The piano lid was raised and only a few other people would have been able to see them.  Mr Doyle continued, in whispers, "I've seen a chap with a Bible, quoting from it to customers but I don't think he's come with the Archbishop.  A few minutes ago, I heard him quote a passage beginning "What doth it profit a man..." but I couldn't hear the rest of it.  I read the whole Bible when I was a boy but I can't remember that part.  Anyway, I'm hoping to earn some money from the Archbishop.  I've heard someone say that he's lost his sole."  We looked around and listened.  Near the other side of the piano, sitting at a table, were two young men and a middle-aged man, in British Telecom boiler suits, drinking beer and looking at some papers.  The middle-aged man said "I don't know why this place is so crowded" and I recognised his voice immediately.  He was the man I'd overheard yesterday.  I was very disappointed, but as we walked back to the University, we discussed the situation and one of my colleagues wouldn't agree with me.  He'd decided that, if the rumours he'd heard were true, he'd want Professor Borysiewicz to stay.  I'll give you the gist of his explanation.  The University might earn money from the film company, well in excess of the cost of salary, accommodation and meals for Dr Williams until his normal retirement age.  The company might, of course, make major savings on film sets but also minor savings on make-up.  There might be a three-party contract.

Best wishes, Maurice"

Mr Winchester:  Well, at least we've a plausible explanation for the decision to appoint Dr Williams.

Mr Piper:  Actually, there's something I haven't mentioned.  The University has a relevant policy.  Maurice has shown me a copy of an internal memorandum from Professor Borysiewicz to senior staff who deal with recruitment of staff and students.  It's quite long but I'll outline it.  The University's website states "The University of Cambridge is committed in its pursuit of academic excellence to equality of opportunity and to a proactive and inclusive approach to equality, which supports and encourages all under-represented groups, promotes an inclusive culture and values diversity.  The commitment applies to all protected groups...".  There's a link to the characteristics which are protected and they include "belief".  For example, the policy would require the University not to discriminate against anyone on the grounds that he or she had been preaching that there were cheese mines on the moon.  Almost all the University's staff and students almost always write and talk sense, at least when the material will be open to lawful scrutiny by the University authorities.  Of course, that's only a qualitative statement.  As one might expect from a scientist of Professor Borysiewicz's calibre, he states it quantitatively, giving statistics based on recordings of lectures etc.  He calls for the recruitment of more people who've often written and / or talked nonsense and for applicants to be asked to produce evidence that they've done so.  Of course, the policy of non-discrimination on grounds of belief is inconsistent with the pursuit of academic excellence but I don't think the University authorities have noticed that.

Explanatory Notes (inserted on 12 December 2012)

The University's policy is based on the Equality Act 2010.

The policy requires the University to aim to recruit a wide variety of deluded people (but not people with delusions of all types).

If Dr Williams believes that he cannot publicly comment on the behaviour of the RSPCA, the policy protects him from discrimination on the grounds that he holds that belief.

However,  Professor Borysiewicz is entitled, at least in his personal capacity, to answer Mr Johnson's question.   


Mr Winchester (to Mr Piper):  Regarding the rumour about Professor Borysiewicz and the film director, did your son give the title of any proposed film?

Mr Piper:  Not exactly.  He said that, according to the rumour, the director had mentioned a sequel to "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone".


Mr Braithwaite (to Mr Piper):  George, I'm due to go to Cambridge soon but I don't expect to be there on a Friday.  I'd like to visit The King Edward and meet Maurice and Juliette there.

Mr Piper (to Mr Braithwaite):  I'll give you their 'phone number as well.  (He writes on a piece of paper and gives it to Mr Braithwaite.)

Mr Winchester (to Mr Braithwaite):  I can chip in, Arthur.  The King Edward's on Saxon Road.  It's easily recognisable.  It was built for a marquis, by friars, shortly after the accession of Edward I, in the Early English Gothic style.  I can imagine them, chipping away at the stone.  It has only one storey but it's a tall storey.  If you see Paddy, please introduce yourself, tell him that you know me and give him my best wishes.  You'll see a notice above his work space, in large block letters:

PATRICK BYRNE DOYLE
  BOOT AND SHOE REPAIRER

THEY KID YOU, WE THINK

^We regret the delay in publishing this addendum.  It was caused by illness of one of our members but we are pleased that he has fully recovered.


Addendum 27 August 2013

On 17 August  2013,  several newspapers reported that Archbishop Welby had been invited by the RSPCA to become its Vice-Patron (as his predecessors Archbishops Coggan, Runcie, Carey and Williams had done) but had declined.

A spokesperson from Lambeth Palace had stated:  "... the Archbishop has received many kind invitations to patron a large variety of charities and good causes...   However, in light of the sheer volume of requests the Archbishop receives and the many pressures on his time and resources, he has reluctantly decided to restrict his patronage to a manageable number of organisations ...  Nevertheless, the Archbishop has enormous admiration for the RSPCA ..."

The next day, the Daily Telegraph published comments from Mr Bill Oddie OBE and Mr Richard Howitt MEP.  Mr  Oddie described the explanation from Lambeth Palace as "absolute nonsense".  He did not accept that the role of Vice-Patron involved any workload.   He added that not only the Anglican Church but churches generally had a "dreadful record" on animal welfare.  Mr Howitt described the RSPCA as "the most reputable organisation with the highest levels of integrity".

Mr Johnson has commented as follows:

The statement, by the Archbishop's spokesperson, that the Archbishop has enormous admiration for the RSPCA, is disgraceful.  In effect, Archbishop Welby is condoning bad behaviour by the RSPCA, in relation to McDonald's and to the "Freedom Food" scandal exposed by Hillside Animal Sanctuary.  Although I am a Christian and I know that Mr Oddie is not, I agree with him that churches generally have a dreadful record on animal welfare but I wish he would publicly acknowledge the RSPCA's faults.   Mr Howitt is, at best, misinformed about the RSPCA and, as a Vice-President of it, he could have no valid excuse.  His statement is bizarre in two ways, firstly in that it conflicts with published evidence and, secondly, in that his Party (the Labour Party) does not support RSPCA policy on slaughter.  Does he not know that, or does he not want to draw attention to it?

Mr B has also commented, as follows:

I endorse Mr Johnson's first two statements.  His third ("Although I am a Christian ...") is remarkably candid.  I have not studied the published doctrines of every organisation which calls itself "Christian" but I havestudied those of six major ones and am appalled by their disregard for animal welfare.  There are many individuals who, like Mr Johnson, call themselves "Christians" and are very concerned about animal welfare but such people do not control, for example, the Vatican or the Anglican Church.  He does not have to attend a church.  He can pray at home.  I endorse his statements about Mr Howitt and I suggest that he write to Mr Howitt, asking whether he supports the RSPCA policy that the "religious exemptions", which allow inhumane slaughter, should be abolished.  As regards Archbishop Welby's "enormous admiration for the RSPCA", I look forward to an early sermon from him in support of that policy.


Addendum 30 September 2013

With reference to the last paragraph of the previous addendum, Mr Johnson has given us a copy of a letter to Mr Howitt, as follows:

14 September 2013

Dear Mr Howitt

I refer to the article entitled "The Previous Archbishop of Canterbury, the RSPCA ..." on www.cronies.org.uk (which mentions you).

Please let me know whether you agree that the "religious exemptions", which allow inhumane slaughter, should be abolished.

Yours sincerely

P K Johnson

We have written to Archbishop Welby, as follows:

20 September 2013

Dear Sir

We draw to your attention our article entitled "The Previous Archbishop of Canterbury, the RSPCA ..." as updated on 27 August 2013, especially the last sentence.

Yours sincerely

The operators of www.cronies.org.uk


Addendum 11 October 2013           

Mr Johnson has sent us a copy of a further letter to Mr Howitt, as follows, with a Recorded Delivery receipt for an item sent to Mr Howitt's UK office on 3 October 2013:

3 October 2013

Dear Mr Howitt

Please note that I have not received anything from you re: my letter of 14 September 2013, of which I attach a signed copy.

Yours sincerely

P K Johnson

The Royal Mail website shows that it was delivered on 5 October 2013.  He has told us today that he has still not received anything from Mr Howitt.

With reference to the above Addendum of 8 December 2011, Hillside Animal Sanctuary carried out an investigation at a "Freedom Food" farm in Cheshire in July 2013, reported to the RSPCA that pigs were being kept there in appalling conditions and has recently published a scathing criticism of the handling of the matter by the RSPCA.


Addendum 18 November 2013

Our Hon Sec has sent a letter as follows to Mr Howitt, by Recorded Delivery:

23 October 2013

Dear Mr Howitt


Re: Slaughter of Animals

I understand that Mr P K Johnson of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx^^ wrote to you on 14 September 2013, as follows:

"I refer to the article entitled "The Previous Archbishop of Canterbury, the RSPCA ..." on www.cronies.org.uk (which mentions you).  Please let me know whether you agree that the "religious exemptions", which allow inhumane slaughter, should be abolished."

I also understand that, although he sent you a reminder by Recorded Delivery on 3 October 2013, with a signed copy of his letter of 14 September 2013, he has still not received a reply.

If you have not already written to him, please do so.  Please also write to me to confirm that you have done so.

Yours sincerely

xxxxxxxxxxx^^^

Hon Sec

www.cronies.org.uk

Mr Johnson has received a letter from Mr Howitt, as follows:

31 October 2013

Dear Mr Johnson


I recently received a letter written on your behalf by a xxxxxxxxxxxx^^^, this letter indicated that you had written to me on 14 September and again on 3 October 2013.  These letters were sent to my constituency office however I am not the member of the European Parliament who represents you.  Should you wish to raise the issues set out in the web site www.cronies.org.uk, with your MEP you can find their address details at www.Writetothem.com.


I apologise for the fact you were not advised earlier that in line with agreed protocols I do not answer letters received from individuals resident in another constituency.

Should your query instead relate to the role and policy of the RSPCA please write to them directly at

RSPCA
Wilberforce Way

Southwater
Horsham
West Sussex
RH13 9RS

Yours sincerely

 
Richard Howitt MEP
East of England Region

Our Hon Sec has received a letter from Mr Howitt, as follows:

31 October 2013

Dear xxxxxxx^^^

I am writing in response to your letter of 23 October 2013 concerning correspondent with a Mr P K Johnson.  Please be advised I have received your letter which has been actioned accordingly.

Yours sincerely

Richard Howitt MEP
East of England Region

Mr Johnson has commented as follows:

My letters were addressed to Mr Howitt, rather than the MEP for my own constituency, because they related to a newspaper article which mentioned Mr Howitt and to his position as a Vice-President of the RSPCA.  It would have been silly to write to another MEP to ask for Mr Howitt's opinion.  As regards his last paragraph, my "query", as he describes it, is clearly a matter for him, not the RSPCA.  Furthermore, it should have been obvious to him from this website that I was well aware of the relevant RSPCA policy before I wrote to him.

Mr B has also commented, as follows:

Mr Johnson's comments are excellent but I can add to them.  Mr Howitt's letter evades the issue but would probably, in many people's minds, create illusions of helpfulness.  It is preposterous.  Has any MEP ever been disciplined for answering a letter from someone resident in another MEP's constituency?  Under the European Convention, he is clearly entitled to write to Mr Johnson to express the opinion that the "religious exemptions" should, or should not, be abolished.  If he has agreed to a protocol which has taken away that right, he should not have willingly done so and, if he has been pressurised to do so, he should state this on his website.  In any event, my understanding of the legal position is that, if he has been pressurised to do so, the European Convention overrides the protocol.

Regardless of the above, he should state, on his website, his opinion that the "religious exemptions" should, or should not, be abolished.

In relation to "Freedom Food", I draw attention to the fact that, in February 2013, the RSPCA commissioned a review of the scheme, chaired by a solicitor, Duncan McNair.  The report was published in May 2013 and all its recommendations were approved in June 2013 by the RSPCA Council of Trustees but there is still no evidence on the RSPCA website that failures of "Freedom Food" licencees to comply with RSPCA policies are rare.

I shall watch, with great interest, the website of Hillside Animal Sanctuary for any further evidence of licencees' negligence but I still have no confidence in the RSPCA.  It appears, from that website, that the behaviour of the RSPCA in relation to the farm referred to in the previous addendum was scandalous, there is still nothing on the RSPCA website disputing the accuracy of anything stated by Hillside Animal Sanctuary and, of course, I have still not received answers to my questions re: McDonald's.

I deem Mr Howitt to know that Hillside Animal Sanctuary has criticised the RSPCA, even if he did not know in August.  It is open to him to publish, on his website, either all relevant RSPCA records or an explanation for his failure to publish them.  The same applies to the RSPCA records re: McDonald's.  It is also open to him to question RSPCA officials and publish the results on his website.
 


^^  At his request, we have obliterated Mr Johnson's address.
^^^ At his request, we have obliterated the name of our Hon Sec.
  
  
Home

Last updated 9 December 2013
No change of substance has been made since 18 November 2013.  The format has been improved and minor corrections have been made.