Trisven13 Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 Rather than help the poor woman the R$PCA took her "children". You can guarantee these denizens of animal rights will either kill most of these poor animals or more likely killed others so they could shelter them and bathe in the glory of destroying someone with obvious mental problems on top of her other problems. In my considered opinion when it's no longer possible to distinguish the abusers from the enforcers, it's time for a new organisation. And if someone was forcing their human children to live in similar conditions the situation would be just as socially unacceptable. There is such limited information provided here about this matter but some people can still jump to immediate conclusions. To have a considered opinion you need to actually consider facts, and all of them. They are not all presented here by a long stretch. For someone to keep animals for their own reasons when that keeping amounts to cruelty is selfish and wrong, no matter what the emotional attachment to them is. If someone wants animals so badly that they are prepared to compromise those animals' health to the point of them dying there is a major issue at stake, and it's not with the prosecuting authority or with the courts, it's with the owner. But here is the thing. If it was human kids they would be returned to her with all the help under the sun. Because is animals they are removed from her care forever and she has to pay for the privilege of them doing so. :D If the arsepca really cared they would help the woman care for her animals. Agreed. Was there ever a problem with this woman's animals when she lived in her 1.5million property? If the only problem has arisen since she lost everything financially then I would have thought assistance rather than prosecution would have been the best solution. If the animals were always kept in poor condition with the difference now that they all live in a car then I agree with prosecution. The way the story reads, however, is that someone has fallen on tough financial times and tried desperately to hold on to her animals when all else is gone. If that is the truth then the RSPCA should be ashamed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 It just seems to me that the RSPCA pick those they will prosecute based on the ability of the defendant to pay a solicitor. How many cases do they proceed against when the defendant has money? Why won't they take on the livestock industry, we still have battery hens for goodness sakes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted March 22, 2010 Author Share Posted March 22, 2010 No one is denying the animals needed to be helped but so did the owner. Misguided,mentally ill or not that woman loved those animals and hung onto them through horrible adversity. It must have Been aweful for her to live under those circumstances. Yes the situation wasnt good for the animals either so there was a need for some kind of action but She should have been helped via welfare and counselling services.Not treated like a crimminal and fined. The emphasis is so heavy on punishment and publicity that they have lost their humanity and the system is feeding it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whippets Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 Once again the RSPCA shows its true colours...... And you make your judgement from a few lines in a newspaper... 23 animals, living in their own faceces and urine, crammed in one car together for weeks on end. Skin scalded from ammonia, infested with ringworm and fleas, dehydrated, getting no light, no fresh air, no room to turn, hardly any food. Oh but the poor woman had lost her money and had nowhere to live - and that makes it all ok I suppose? And remember, the magistrate is the one that makes the decision on whether to impose a penalty and how much. And the magistrate does consider the circumstances of the defendent. And that she has the option to perform community service instead of paying money. The RSPCA has treated the cats, brought them back to health and is trying to rehome them. Can I just ask all the RSPCA bashers out there - if it had been the police that had charged this woman, what would you have said then? Yup nice of them to help the animals. Did they assist the lady or direct the lady to any kind of outreach program to help get her on her feet? get some clothes on her back? or at least get her a meal? Probably not. I love animals to but it's a pretty sad society when people do all they can for animals and not give a shoit about the people who are struck down by unfortunate events as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeckoTree Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 It's virtually impossible to get any sort of crisis let alone transitional accomodation with animals in tow in Australia. Mission Australia has one program running in Melbourne that will allow I think up to 2 dogs, but still tis is only a temporary arangement of maximum 3 weeks. The point between being homeless and finding suitable accomodation just for yourself is extreamly difficult, 23 animals and it's impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greytmate Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 It's virtually impossible to get any sort of crisis let alone transitional accomodation with animals in tow in Australia.Mission Australia has one program running in Melbourne that will allow I think up to 2 dogs, but still tis is only a temporary arangement of maximum 3 weeks. The point between being homeless and finding suitable accomodation just for yourself is extreamly difficult, 23 animals and it's impossible. Anyone taking on 23 animals needs to be aware that if they are suddenly made homeless (and only they might know the chances of that) then the animals cannot stay with them. We don't know the full story here, but perhaps it was the removal of the cats that was thought necessary before the lady herself could be helped. No information seems to be available on anything other than the condition of the cats and the car, and that was disgusting and something had to be done. Steve, are the pacers registered with the RSPCA QLD as a rescue? Could those cats be needing foster care right now? The RSPCA QLD is cooperative with other groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted March 23, 2010 Author Share Posted March 23, 2010 It's virtually impossible to get any sort of crisis let alone transitional accomodation with animals in tow in Australia.Mission Australia has one program running in Melbourne that will allow I think up to 2 dogs, but still tis is only a temporary arangement of maximum 3 weeks. The point between being homeless and finding suitable accomodation just for yourself is extreamly difficult, 23 animals and it's impossible. We have been providing foster care for animals when their owners are in this sort of predicment until they are able to find accommodation which allows them to bring their animals home. We are working with women's refuges in the same way. We have also been able to help people find accommodation which allows pets with our counselling services. With the help of Eukanuba we currently feed about 80 cats and dogs to give help to people who have hit hard times. We do this for a limited period and provide help for them physically and with counselling to try to make sure the problems are not recurring. The aim is to do what we can to keep owner and animal together but we have hit some who really needed to thin them out because they were being neglected and there was no alternative in sight so we've helped with rehoming and allowed the owners to feel involved.Then we help follow up with welfare services to ensure all is well for both owner and animal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin19801 Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 It's virtually impossible to get any sort of crisis let alone transitional accomodation with animals in tow in Australia.Mission Australia has one program running in Melbourne that will allow I think up to 2 dogs, but still tis is only a temporary arangement of maximum 3 weeks. The point between being homeless and finding suitable accomodation just for yourself is extreamly difficult, 23 animals and it's impossible. We have been providing foster care for animals when their owners are in this sort of predicment until they are able to find accommodation which allows them to bring their animals home. We are working with women's refuges in the same way. We have also been able to help people find accommodation which allows pets with our counselling services. With the help of Eukanuba we currently feed about 80 cats and dogs to give help to people who have hit hard times. We do this for a limited period and provide help for them physically and with counselling to try to make sure the problems are not recurring. The aim is to do what we can to keep owner and animal together but we have hit some who really needed to thin them out because they were being neglected and there was no alternative in sight so we've helped with rehoming and allowed the owners to feel involved.Then we help follow up with welfare services to ensure all is well for both owner and animal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chocolatelover Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 (edited) There is no excuse for animal abuse. Sure she loves them though. And now human welfare is the RSPCA's job too? Edited March 23, 2010 by Chocolatelover Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WreckitWhippet Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 There is no excuse for animal abuse. Sure she loves them though. And now human welfare is the RSPCA's job too? Soon will be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crisovar Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 There is no excuse for animal abuse. Sure she loves them though. And now human welfare is the RSPCA's job too? Animal Welfare is not just about the animals, it is also necessary to educate and help people to provide the care for their animals need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin19801 Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 There is no excuse for animal abuse. Sure she loves them though. And now human welfare is the RSPCA's job too? Animal Welfare is not just about the animals, it is also necessary to educate and help people to provide the care for their animals need. Why is it so difficult for some people to understand this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted March 23, 2010 Author Share Posted March 23, 2010 There is no excuse for animal abuse. Sure she loves them though. And now human welfare is the RSPCA's job too? There is no need to have people punished via the courts when they are desperate already.How did having her charged and fined by the courts stop any animal from suffering? They had already taken them away! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mantis Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 Once again the RSPCA shows its true colours. ..... Gawd the RSPCA make me so angry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chocolatelover Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 The story in the chronicle said the animals had no water or food. Water is free and readily available. So now we need to educate people that their pets need food and water?????? The world is in a sorry state. Probably pointless fining her though - cat breeding is obviously not as lucrative as it was a few years ago. I realise people don't agree and there is obviously some sort of vendetta against the RSPCA happening here. There are very few facts to go on but the fact is that the courts are usually quite lenient on animal cruelty cases so I just wonder whether there is more to this story than is reported. I mean, pretty extreme to go from living in a 1.5 million dollar mansion to your car! There may well be mental health issues and she deserves to receive whatever help she needs but I just don't believe that animals should suffer in the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crisovar Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 The story in the chronicle said the animals had no water or food. Water is free and readily available. So now we need to educate people that their pets need food and water?????? The world is in a sorry state.Probably pointless fining her though - cat breeding is obviously not as lucrative as it was a few years ago. I realise people don't agree and there is obviously some sort of vendetta against the RSPCA happening here. There are very few facts to go on but the fact is that the courts are usually quite lenient on animal cruelty cases so I just wonder whether there is more to this story than is reported. I mean, pretty extreme to go from living in a 1.5 million dollar mansion to your car! There may well be mental health issues and she deserves to receive whatever help she needs but I just don't believe that animals should suffer in the process. No Vendetta, pure and simple lack of confidence in the organisation based on my own personal experiences and their track record. No, of course the animals shouldn't suffer, but fining someone then washing your hands of it saying we have done our job is not good enough. Their job should be starting way back with education and assistance, not simply with prosecution. People in dire straights with their animals should be able to call upon the RSPCA for help and assistance, but all too often when they do they are turned away or charged or have their animals removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILK Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 There is no excuse for animal abuse. Sure she loves them though. And now human welfare is the RSPCA's job too? :D Human welfare is everyones job. I don't care how much red tape there is in any situation, where there is any type of assistance or customer service required the person in charge has the ability to do th "RIGHT" thing. Where there is a will ther is a way!!Clearly judging by this particular article the right thing was not done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelina Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 There is no excuse for animal abuse. Sure she loves them though. And now human welfare is the RSPCA's job too? :D Human welfare is everyones job. I don't care how much red tape there is in any situation, where there is any type of assistance or customer service required the person in charge has the ability to do th "RIGHT" thing. Where there is a will ther is a way!!Clearly judging by this particular article the right thing was not done. The courts imposed the penalty not the RSPCA. Whilst her intentions may have been good, the animals were being mistreated ... she would have been better to surrender them as hard as that is, but they deserved a better quality of life than she could give them .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILK Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 (edited) There is no excuse for animal abuse. Sure she loves them though. And now human welfare is the RSPCA's job too? Human welfare is everyones job. I don't care how much red tape there is in any situation, where there is any type of assistance or customer service required the person in charge has the ability to do th "RIGHT" thing. Where there is a will ther is a way!!Clearly judging by this particular article the right thing was not done. The courts imposed the penalty not the RSPCA. Whilst her intentions may have been good, the animals were being mistreated ... she would have been better to surrender them as hard as that is, but they deserved a better quality of life than she could give them .... Who took the woman through the court system Angelina? Edited March 24, 2010 by ILK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all that glitters Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 God, $9000 in fines when she has no money. Not even animal cruelty or torture punishments are that bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now