Rspca

[inez]

spotted on another forum discussing the Kim Hollingsworth case.

Seems it is not just dogs that are disposed of after they have served their purpose.

" Quote Originally Posted by treacle View Post

most of the time they get it right and i bet kim doesn't know what it's like to go hungry (especially not with that high protein diet of hers)..."

"

yep, most of the time is good enough, although didnt they stop hanging because the last one turned out to be innocent? But hey people like that ruth deserved all she got, gee if she couldnt even find a decent solicitor she deserved to be sent destitute.

perhaps thats where they got it wrong with capital punishment, they left in an avenue of appeal. otherwise would never have been able to come to light the idiot who obviously had ruths so probably deserved his fate anyway.

Although I suppose as long as they get it right "most of the time" who cares about the collateral damage cases. well as long as its someone else and not you one day?

But then as one who listened to Steve Coleman and his cohorts agree to my friend Marion if she signed her horses over to them "they would find good homes for them" then stand helpless as the same Steve Coleman walked into the ring at McGrath's Hill Saleyards and tell THE AUCTIONEER AND everyone present at the auction that day (four days after I witnessed Marion signing them over based on that assurance that day)

He said loud enough for every one present to hear "NO ONE BUT THE DOGGERS ARE ALLOWED TO BID ON THESE HORSES"

I am not a university graduate or a now CEO of those who "most of the time they get it right" so I fail to understand how making sure no other buyers were allowed to bid or the auctioneer told not to accept any bids from any but the doggers agents guaranteeing their only fate was to be shot constituted or constitutes as having made the effort to "find good home's for them".

Or for that matter how "right" is an organisation whose motto is the care of "all creatures great and small" to plead they are "saving" Kims horses, I cant help but wonder if they too after they have served their purpose and after Kim is disposed of, will they too share the fate of Marion's beautiful mares and their foals?

To the day I die I will have that awful day rerun in my nightmares.

I suppose unlike you I see that 11 horses await their fate. I saw that day Marions ten much loved mares and foals knocked down one by heartbreaking one to the doggers. As I begged, sick to my stomach the nearest dogger to buy them for me, not his boss. Yet knowing if he did, I didnt have the money to buy them all anyway.

I still see his red hair and cold blue eyes and the expresson on his face as he turned on his heel and sent the first mare in."

There are also links to a site discussing legal matters. Including this gem of a quote

"This case raises so many issues about what is wrong with the Australian legal system, and it’s going to take us several different articles just to go thought the details of each aspect. At first glance I need to question just who the legal representation for Ms Downey were. As they have certainly proved the cliché true, that it’s possible for anyone to go to jail, all they need to do is find the right lawyer."

There were a number of links this seems to be the first of the series, certainly reads like fiction but unfortunately isnt, good warning about the danger of incompetent legals. All we seem to hear about are incompetant doctors.

http://judicialwatch.org.au/article/the-ruth-downey,-mal-davies-and-rspca%28nsw%29-story

Edited May 2, 2013 by inez

[Sheridan]

most of the time they get it right and i bet kim doesn't know what it's like to go hungry (especially not with that high protein diet of hers

What's this supposed to mean?

But then as one who listened to Steve Coleman and his cohorts agree to my friend Marion if she signed her horses over to them "they would find good homes for them" then stand helpless as the same Steve Coleman walked into the ring at McGrath's Hill Saleyards and tell THE AUCTIONEER AND everyone present at the auction that day (four days after I witnessed Marion signing them over based on that assurance that day)

Did she get it in writing that they would be found homes and why were the RSPCA after this lady in the first place?

[inez]

I have no idea I copied the post since it seemed that what was said was in reply to "treacle".

As for your second question, do you mean the horses needed to be punished, in this case die, for their owners misdeeds, whatever they may have been?

If this is your meaning?

If so, then there's little hope, for the Hollingsworth horses, so many people seem to hate her profoundly, there is a FB page devoted soley to it apparently.

I had a try at finding the FB page referred to somewhere I was reading.

discovered this one though referring to a hate campaign as well?

"

You need to be a member of Animal Rights Zone to add comments!

Join Animal Rights Zone

Comment by Kerry Baker on July 27, 2012 at 7:59

When this issue first came up all of us, Tim, Carolyn, Roger, myself and other ARZ members encouraged that animal welfare and rescue organistions become involved. What we did not get involved with was the hate campaign against Kim Hollingsworth which is what this is despite many of you claiming it is not. What is painfully evident is that most of you who are posting insults and now transferring your hate campaign to ARZ are not really interested in animal welfare or rights at all. You care about horses, but you don't care what happens to an animal on the way to your plate, or wearing on your back or feet. And the posts coming from many of you indicate very low capacity to think.

None of you have actually come up with a suggestion about what you think any of us have done wrong. Given that we shared your concern about the welfare of the horses, and encouraged you to get animal welfare organisations involved, I remain unclear about what you mean by claiming we (individuals) refused to get involved? What exactly did you want to achieve by posting these threads? And Elli, yes it has been a vendetta. Anybody with an ounce of intelligence would be able to see that.

You who are posting these hate posts are angry, not because of our responses to the original problem, but because we did not join you in your hate campaign against an individual. A comment was made about not respecting others rights to their views. Not true. Your rights to your views have been demonstrated by allowing much of the garbage that has been posted here by the 'let's get Kim Hollingsworth' crowd to go up. If you come to a site like this which is primarily for vegans to share their views and start acting like trolls, expect to be challenged. Respect for your rights to your views is not the same as agreeing with them.

I respect your rights to your views, I just happen to disagree with how you have gone about this. But I am getting tired of many of you stating you are not doing what is glaringly obvious you are. "

and this one, my mistake, its a vegan site, so no wiser as to what the diet reference to Kim Hollingsworth was?

"Comment by Kerry Baker on July 27, 2012 at 10:30

Jean. The behaviour of people on this site has been irrational and abusive. That includes comments made about me and others. And yes, it is completley hypocritical for people here ranting about Kim Hollingsworth and her treatment of horses when they are themselves contributing to animal suffering through the dietary and consumer choices they have knowingly made. There was initially no discrimination about vegan or non-vegan, until the debate became personal. This was done at the outset, the original discussion stating that ARZ members have egg on our faces. You still don't state what in your opinion anybody did was wrong, when originally we all encouraged that horse rescue and animal welfare groups be brought in. The issue here is that ARZ members did not wish to get involved in the hate campaign against Kim Hollongsworth because that is precisely what it was, and still is. I have been considering why the RSPCA took so long to get around to checking these horses if as was claimed complaints were put in months before the original discussion. I suspect the answer is that the same behaviour was demonstrated to the RSPCA who probably decided that this was not a geuine issue.

I do not condemn you for your choice to consume animal products, but the fact is that animals are treated cruelly for the meat and clothing among others. So if you have chosen to contribute to suffering, along with many of these commenters, then you have to question what is the difference. There is no point in claiming the high moral ground Jean because you don't have it. It is perfectly legitimate for me as a vegan to question the intelligence of the vendetta against Kim Hollingsworth when you are part of the problem. It would be a bit like a paedophile speaking up against child slavery in 3rd world countries. Kind of loses the impact."

Edited May 3, 2013 by inez

[Sheridan]

I have no idea I copied the post since it seemed that what was said was in reply to "treacle".

As for your second question, do you mean the horses needed to be punished, in this case die, for their owners misdeeds, whatever they may have been?

If this is your meaning?

If so, then there's little hope, for the Hollingsworth horses, so many people seem to hate her profoundly, there is a FB page devoted soley to it apparently.

As for my second question, since you don't seem to understand it: were the horses reported to the RSPCA and for what reason?

[inez]

I have no idea I copied the post since it seemed that what was said was in reply to "treacle".

As for your second question, do you mean the horses needed to be punished, in this case die, for their owners misdeeds, whatever they may have been?

If this is your meaning?

If so, then there's little hope, for the Hollingsworth horses, so many people seem to hate her profoundly, there is a FB page devoted soley to it apparently.

As for my second question, since you don't seem to understand it: were the horses reported to the RSPCA and for what reason?

I read what I copied, the facts in that are

A. The horses obviously were signed over to the RSPCA for whatever reason, is that reason, really important?

B. Once they were, 4 days later they were present at a public auction.

C. The person who wrote it personally witnessed and heard the RSPCA representative agreed to find good homes for the horses.

D. The person who wrote it personally witnessed and heard the RSPCA representative direct who specifically among the large number of people who come to these auctions that only one class of bidders were allowed to bid.

E. Mares and foals were mentioned so none of them would have been extremely old since old mares tend to become barren.

Why should foals only go to a dogger? Surely they have the potential for a long life given half a chance?

One this is safe to assume. If they were incapable of being floated they hopefully should have been put down where ever they previously were.

If they were capable of being taken to the public auction they did not need immediate euthanesia.

If they were suitable for sale at a public auction why was no one else allowed to bid?

I have been to many many many public auctions. I have never seen an animal singled out, let alone ten mares and their foals as stated, to be sold only for slaughter, not even completly wild brumbies, which in one case were shipped all the way from Kosiosko National Park to Camden Sales last year.

Some were deemed too injoured to be sold, yet they were not slaughtered, I know that because my vet bought them privately and took all 4 of them home and treated them.

So? Sheridan

Why your irrelevant questions about the owner?

Edited May 3, 2013 by inez

[Sheridan]

The RSPCA, like it or not, don't just turn up at a place and say, 'Give us your horses.' They turn up because someone has reported something about an animal. And before you get all indignant I haven't made a judgement on the owner at all.

[inez]

The RSPCA, like it or not, don't just turn up at a place and say, 'Give us your horses.' They turn up because someone has reported something about an animal. And before you get all indignant I haven't made a judgement on the owner at all.

So? Are you comfortable with the RSPCA making sure as many animals as possible are destroyed rather than rehomed?

Is that not the reason of this thread?

The OP did not feel comfortable with this.

Edited May 3, 2013 by inez

[Sheridan]

The RSPCA, like it or not, don't just turn up at a place and say, 'Give us your horses.' They turn up because someone has reported something about an animal. And before you get all indignant I haven't made a judgement on the owner at all.

So? Are you comfortable with the RSPCA making sure as many animals as possible are destroyed rather than rehomed?

Is that not the original subject of this thread?

Inez, I have asked a question. If you don't know the answer, that's fine, but your chest heaving indignation at me asking a question is pointless. Answer it, don't answer it, but ditch the strop.

[inez]

The RSPCA, like it or not, don't just turn up at a place and say, 'Give us your horses.' They turn up because someone has reported something about an animal. And before you get all indignant I haven't made a judgement on the owner at all.

So? Are you comfortable with the RSPCA making sure as many animals as possible are destroyed rather than rehomed?

Is that not the original subject of this thread?

Inez, I have asked a question. If you don't know the answer, that's fine, but your chest heaving indignation at me asking a question is pointless. Answer it, don't answer it, but ditch the strop.

Sincere apologies. I did not realise you never need to answer a question, only to ask them.

[Ringo]

Out of curiosity under what conditions do you all think the RSPCA are able to seize an animal and what power are they actually exercising ?

[inez]

Out of curiosity under what conditions do you all think the RSPCA are able to seize an animal and what power are they actually exercising ?

Easy to answer, All a special constable needs is to "form the opinion" the animal in question in its "best interests" should be seized and taken to their own vet to be assessed and or treated.

Its in the legislation, cant remember the number n such that matches.

Edited May 4, 2013 by inez

[inez]

As their own TV program showed, they unlike the police do not need a search warrant to enter your property or your house to do so.

In that program she found an partly open window, went in and took the dog, leaving a notice of seizure on the door as she left. As I recall, think she explained as long as she believed the dog was in need of rescue or seizure she could enter the house legally as long as she could find an open window.

No idea of which episode in question. There sure were some pretty stunned viewers in my neighbourhood, they were far from impressed.

Then wasnt there the one where one saw a dog though the window, got in and discovered it was a statue?

The Koala Park at forget where, all filmed by their TV crew, was their most famous raid and seizure without warning.

Didnt two of them die ?

In the case of the taken dog I think it was returned that afternoon or the next day as it turned out to be fine. Anyone else remember the episode?

As for the sheep chasing episode, no country kid would be able to sit down to dinner for a week, let alone have dinner before they were sent to bed. If they were filmed chasing a full wool sheep like that pack of complete giggling idiots.

What the producers think is acceptable footage could get anyone else charged with aggravated cruelty?

I remember there was a whole thread about that one.

Edited May 4, 2013 by inez

[tarope]

Out of curiosity under what conditions do you all think the RSPCA are able to seize an animal and what power are they actually exercising ?

Easy to answer, All a special constable needs is to "form the opinion" the animal in question in its "best interests" should be seized and taken to their own vet to be assessed and or treated.

Its in the legislation, cant remember the number n such that matches.

This is another one of the reasons the R$PCA is hated so much...they can do this and much worse and are accountable to no one. :mad

[Ringo]

Actually inez that's not correct

As to the open window go in and take a dog ??? think they were lucky it didn't go further (expecially as the dog was deemed OK !!!! )

Again not quite correct

Yes in certain circumstances they do need a search warrant

And it is more than 'just an opinion'

[Steve]

the episode where she got a ladder and climbed in the window to take the dog? It was about a 4 month old boxer. The reason given that they were able to do so was that the dog's tail had been docked. Clearly it was a while ago as there was no current suffering unless you assume that because a dog has no tail it is suffering and being treated cruelly for the rest of its life. The ranger knocked on the front door - no one home so she got a ladder from the back yard and climbed up to an pen window to get a look at the dog which was in side the house - saw it had a short tail and we saw her climb in and come out carrying the dog down the ladder - took it back to their vet and Xrayed it and showed it was not a bobtail. She left a note for the owner to say they had the dog and to contact them asap.

The owner said she had been given the dog by her ex boyfriend as a gift, who was now overseas somewhere and she had no idea how to contact him, no idea who he bought it from so they returned the dog to the owner because even though it was suffering form tail docking on the morning caused by an owner who couldn't have been making it suffer at the time as she wasnt home it was removed from the house it was no longer suffering that afternoon.

We talked about it here for weeks too. I thought the owner should have screamed blue bloody murder but I guess they were happy to get their dog back and not want too much more investigation. Not only that you can only complain to the person who supervises them and most are concerned that this would bring more crap down on them.

However, that was about a totally different thing to what is being discussed here. If they have a dog regardless of whether its been a poster dog for them or not no amount of external pressure is ever going to change the fact that they have a right to and in fact a duty of care to assess it and make some hard decisions on whether the dog should go into the community.Some will some wont.

if you dont agree with how they do this then dont donate to them but fact is that the government and the majority of the general public want them to do this so they can be sure that only dogs with good sound temperaments are able to be back in the community. It is in their best interests to show that smaller private rescues and shelters keep the dogs too long or are too easy on their assessments, keeping dogs which are suffering because they dont have a home or they dont have quality of life = dead is not suffering. Rehoming dogs especially in the numbers that get rehomed with the type of assessment now is a reasonably new concept. The early days of RSPCA involvement with abandoned dogs was about getting dogs off the streets for local governments and assuming they were suffering because they were homeless.

So if anything is to be changed it has to be remembered there are two separate issues.One is the power they have as a qasi police force with no outside accountability.Even if every person who ever accused them was telling it wrong, there is no avoiding the fact that there is a high potential risk of corruption and an ability of animal owners being treated without natural justice under the current system.

The other is how they assess animals, potential owners and run their shelters and no one sitting watching can truly say whether the dog should have been rehomed. It was their call and they made it.While those who are on this forum condemn them for that most of the general public feel better that they are able to decide which animals should be in the community without emotional or PR considerations. The end result is that those complaining come off as a bunch of bleeding hearts who want to save everything.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Steve

[zoiboy]

"Freedom of Information" isn't all that easy either. I worked on a matter that required information via Freedom of Information and I had to shell out something in the vicinity of $300.00 (if I remember correctly). It certainly wasn't "free". All well and good if I had a spare several $M dollars to dip into as the RSPCA has.

Not only is the infomation far from free, it is also dependant on the *other party* agreeing that you

can indeed have the infomation. I have applyed for, and paid the fee for, such infomation, only to have

it arrive with all manner of blacked out infomaton.

[inez]

Is it correct or scare mongering , that the proposed legislation if passed means that the ankc's will hand over all information as to members names, address and all details about their dogs?

I know many people feel this is an unacceptable invasion of privacy.

Especially laughable after watching the news last night, that a council had to switch off their ctv cameras because one citizen took it to court that they are an invasion of privacy. Particulry in the light of the fact the mongrel who killed the abc lady would never have been caught without the footage showing him acosting her?

[Sheridan]

Actually, I wonder if the Office of the Privacy Commissioner might have a view on the proposed legislation?

[Ringo]

No legislation formed as yet (that we know abt)

As to the CCTV surveillance by the local council - you are able read the findings on the case law website if you choose the admin tribunal option - outlines powers available, how they are to be utilised etc

The council could not show that by having the CCTV recording in the areas they did it was actually contributing to what they are legally allowed to do, hence no CCTV recording. It was an another example of a local council in NSW interpreting the law one way, someone else interpreting it another and the umpire giving a ruling. Nothing new in that idea, it's how our system works.

Pity they don't take notice of all the relevant rulings handed down in other matters though, they might save themselves some money.

[Sheridan]

Hence the word 'proposed'.