Are You Serious Jo Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 I'm pretty sure Moorook changed lawyers a while ago. I'm not sure but I'd say Greg will get struck off, being convicted of possessing child porn and all. He is appealing that but likely it will be upheld. Little birds say Lola is up to around 150 dogs again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linda K Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 and obviously her supporters are still happy to go on supporting her - some people do not learn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Squish Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 (edited) http://www.skynews.com.au/news/local/adelaide/2014/11/17/guilty-plea-for-animal-shelter-operator.html http://m.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/owner-of-moorook-animal-shelter-lola-mclachlan-can-continue-to-save-animals-despite-guilty-plea/story-fni6uo1m-1227125943906 Edited November 17, 2014 by Miss Squish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeelerLove Posted November 17, 2014 Author Share Posted November 17, 2014 I thought she was already meant to have no more than 60 animals? The article suggests there are more than that. 2 year good behaviour bond. Hmmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRG Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 Is this likely to be the end of this saga or is there more still to come? What has happened to "white knight" Mark and his political aspirations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linda K Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 and that in itself is attrocious - can only imagine the screaming if it was a breeder who had that many animals over the permit (which I recall was only 20?) had them under those conditions and was not immediately shut down - and so many discrepoancies here - it claims she had to go back to work yet we were told she looked after all the animals full time, and they are saying there was 121 and an unknown number of cats - how the hell can they even all be properly socialised when there are that many. And she is allowed to go on looking after them. That is just so wrong, but of course, yet again, it is rescue and that is a different kettle of fish according to the AR brigade. The fact that it needed teams of workers to even bring it up to an acceptable standard as quoted in the link by the magistrate, is also sad for those animals that should never have been in those sort of conditions at the start Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_PL_ Posted November 19, 2014 Share Posted November 19, 2014 I was looking up some stuff to see if there was more detail about why some of the seized dogs were pts and found this: http://www.rspcasa.asn.au/information/prosecutions/ people have been banned from owning pets for a fraction of what the charges are with this shelter. I don't get it. 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