Are You Serious Jo Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 He's been busy deleting a lot of stuff, good thing people get screenshots when they see it Last week he was a former owner at Willow Wood, now he's an owner again. I can only think of two reasons he would be stopped from wildlife rescue, he hasn't got his permit (well established he would lie and say he did anyway) or he is in trouble over their health. Neither option is acceptable. I do also love the way he has admitted to breaking the law for several years. Can he not google something as basic as regulations on selling eggs or has he just been ignoring the law. Again, neither excuse is something you want to see in a want to be politician. Cinch, caught out being a naughty boy :laugh: Heard back from my brother, he's not worth them bothering with for the fake phone calls and investigation claims, that would have just been icing on the cake :laugh: But now he has had DEH and pirsa, who can be left now :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdierikx Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 It's all about Mark now it appears... T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Keep posting them Looks like I have my winner for the next agency to victimise* him, it's SAPOL *make him behave like a normal law abiding person :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Yeah, see the problem with that is he says one thing then shows a video of the opposite, so his evidence usually buries him. Of course the SA police would allow themselves to be shown intimidating an innocent person Makes perfect sense doesn't it, they deal with a vexatious person so they give him "evidence" of their corruption. Thanks for the memories SA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 What matter, what incident last week, it's all so vague. Yes he was going to have a "meeting in parliament" he really needs to keep better track of his fantasy world, so many continuity problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 I'm finding it hard to keep up with the tin foil hat theories, it just goes on and on then changes and then changes again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 The transcript of the minister's response to Mark's complaints via Anne Bressington at question time. QUESTION TIME MOOROOK ANIMAL SHELTER Page No: 3882 – 3883 The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (15:02): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a question of the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation about the Moorook Animal Shelter. Leave granted. The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Last sitting week in this place the Hon. Michelle Lensink asked the minister a question in relation to the Moorook Animal Shelter. The minister's answer was that he was of the understanding that complaints had been made about Moorook, and that the RSPCA had acquired a warrant to go on to the property. My information has been that no warrant has been sighted or presented to the owner of Moorook at any time. Will the minister provide the house with information on the date the warrant was issued, and when was the first visit that the RSPCA made to Moorook Animal Shelter? The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (15:02): I thank the honourable member for her most important question. I said recently, as she noted, that inspectors employed by the RSPCA executed the primary enforcement functions prescribed under the Animal Welfare Act 1985 and its subordinate legislation in relation to an animal shelter at Moorook. I have been advised that since 2009 the RSPCA has received a number of complaints regarding the welfare of animals at that shelter. I refer to my comments made in this place on 30 April that RSPCA inspectors have attended the Moorook Animal Shelter on several occasions in the past and given directions in accordance with powers under the act. I understand that after receiving a recent complaint, the RSPCA inspectors sought and obtained an unrestricted warrant to access the Moorook premises. As a result of the inspection conducted by the RSPCA inspectors under warrant, I am advised that a number of animals were surrendered and the owner of the Moorook premises was provided with five animal welfare directions in relation to all the animals on the property, which had to be complied with by 24 April this year. As I also said in this place, I have been advised by my department that follow-up inspections were carried out by the RSPCA inspectors to ensure that the directions they issued were being met. No animals were removed on these subsequent occasions, and further directions were issued, which must be complied with by 25 April. On Thursday 2 May, I am advised, three RSPCA inspectors attended the Moorook Animal Shelter, including one who is an animal behaviourist, along with an independent veterinarian. The inspectors had a warrant and were accompanied by two police officers. It was confirmed that the conditions of the animal welfare notices issued the previous month had not been fully met. On 8 May I am advised the RSPCA laid seven charges of ill treatment against the proprietor of the shelter. Both the charges and the particulars may be varied or added to over time as the case progresses, I understand. The matter will be heard for the first time, is my advice, in the Berri Magistrates Court on 24 June 2013. I am also advised that the RSPCA has properly recommended to the defendant, apparently in writing but also orally to the defendant's daughter, that she seeks the assistance of the Legal Services Commission, and it has provided her with the relevant contact details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minimax Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 I honestly don't think Today/Tonight care. Apparently they did a designer dog story tonight, so if they honestly thought Moorook was that important I'm sure they could have delayed that story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minimax Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 From what I've been reading they risk legal action if they run a story on Moorook now that a court case is pending, unless the story is purely a statement of fact. Since what was planned, based on comments by both Mark and the TT reporter Frank Pangello, is supposed to be a huge exposé attacking the RSPCA for what they've done to Moorook, it's not exactly just stating undisputed facts. And that's something a TV network isn't going to touch with any length pole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Called it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minimax Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 And a subsequent comment by Mark about Wombles time at Moorook... Four years in that hell hole... Lola and the volunteers had no reason to think he should be pts? Because now they are medical professionals and can independently assess a dogs condition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 The Hansard transcript also shows that despite Mark claiming that the rscpa found nothing wrong previously and sat down for tea and cakes this was a lie. Moorook were given directives to follow and I daresay that they weren't and the raid was a result. The fact that Moorook claim they can detect and diagnose illness from looking at a dog shows their excuses. Who knows how many hadn't been vet checked because they didn't "look" sick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minimax Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 The Hansard transcript also shows that despite Mark claiming that the rscpa found nothing wrong previously and sat down for tea and cakes this was a lie. Moorook were given directives to follow and I daresay that they weren't and the raid was a result. The fact that Moorook claim they can detect and diagnose illness from looking at a dog shows their excuses. Who knows how many hadn't been vet checked because they didn't "look" sick. The fact that the RSCPA have diagnosed the dog with hydrocephalus when he'd been at Moorook for 4 years without that diagnoses, which also means it wasn't getting treated for the condition. Considering Mark doesn't even know how hydrocephalus is diagnosed probably means he never was actually diagnosed. Poor little thing, he could have actually been treated for it, had they pulled their heads out of their asses long enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 At least poor Wombles can't suffer any more. One month to go and the real possibility that she can't neglect any more animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 That is a good point, they may claim they need more time, hopefully the rscpa can make a case that it needs to be heard in a timely manner due to the nature of the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minimax Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 lol I couldn't help it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minimax Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 lol I couldn't help it! I thought the timing was a bit too coincidental to not be you but wasn't 100% sure until now. :laugh: I notice that none of them want to hear the truth and you're accused of being negative. *rolls eyes* That's a surprise! I knew it wouldn't be a welcomed comment, and I don't intend to stay and continue the conversation with them. It was only designed to make people think and perhaps see there can be another side to a story (I love the fantasy world I live in ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebanne Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 if the poor dog was living with the cats does that mean he was free ranging and eating food out of open packets of food, much like the cats still do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minimax Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 Yeah, I keep trying to tell myself that people will finally understand the truth once evidence is presented at the court case and then realise I'm dreaming. It hasn't even gotten to the court room yet and they're saying the RSPCA must have doctored the vet reports. Sigh. I'm just glad it's not his cult members who get to decide the verdict. And if they carry on with conspiracy theories in court it won't do them any favours, it will just make them look like they are trying to cover things up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 I'm sorry MM, but apparently he can't understand you, you speak a way he can't interpret :laugh: If the prosecution do their job and the judge is fair I think it will go the way it should. They can rant all they like but at the end of the day evidence is evidence and it is out of their hands. 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