Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
HeelerLove

Dogs Seized From No Kill Shelter

1,607 posts in this topic

Snook   

I think it's going to drag on for a while unfortunately.

On a brighter note, someone on facebook could actually be bothered replying to Mark's half-arsed response to that open letter and posted this today. I think he did a great job of addressing some of the issues:

Robert Reynolds

The Aldridge was response was as expected, written in such a way that it was known it would be posted, none the less it failed entirely to adequately respond to the questions, particularly for those who know the full extent of Aldridge and his followers inappropriate behavior since the RSPCA first attended Moorook.

I took some time over the weekend to go through some of the issues as I see them both from the open letter and his responses to that as well as some of my personal favorites:

The assertion by Mark that the RSPCA needs a vet to seize an animal. Quoted from the Animal Welfare Act 1985: Division 2 Section 30(1)(f) An Inspector may “seize and retain any animal or other thing that the inspector reasonably suspects has been used in, or may constitute evidence of, a contravention of this Act”.

Mark there is no suggestion within the above which suggests a vet is required to be present when an animal is seized. Please explain how you conclude that a vet is required and if you cannot substantiate the comment, provide an apology to the RSPCA and the readers of your page for providing them with false information

The assertions that the RSPCA illegally gained access to Moorook with Police assistance, and that they are required to provide notice. Again I quote the Act; Section 30(1)(a)(1) “An inspector may—

(a) enter and search and, if necessary, use reasonable force to break into or open—

(i) premises or a vehicle to which this section applies; or

(ii) part of, or anything in or on, premises or a vehicle to which this

section applies;” Or Section 31(2) which states “No notice is required to be given of a routine inspection of premises or a vehicle in or on which an inspector reasonably suspects there is an animal in respect of which an animal welfare notice or animal welfare order is in force.”.

Given that we know that Animal Welfare Notices were issued, one of these sections apply, I don’t know which, but either way it is clear neither the Police nor RSPCA entered the property illegally, nor was notice required to be given. If they did and you are so certain they breached the law why did you not complain to the ombudsman or seek other legal advice? if you cannot substantiate the comment, provide an apology to the RSPCA and the readers of your page for providing them with false information.

I suggest you acquaint yourself with the act and not just make up your own interpretations.

You provided no evidence of any “dodgy warrant”. If you intent to dispute anything in terms of legal practice, you should put up the evidence to support your claims, if you have no evidence, you should not make the statement in the first place.

You state in your response that you alerted followers because Lola was scared, if she didn't know the RSPCA was on the way there, why was she scared? The intent of your messages is clear and stands in conflict with your comments from the reply, you would be more believable if your posts at the time didn’t refer to RSPCA staff as “Morons” and “filthy scum” that terminology used against people whose role it is to enforce an act of law is grossly inappropriate for someone seeking to hold office as you intend to do. It also undoubtedly intended to encourage anti RSPCA sentiment in the vilest form from those who follow your social media feeds.

The notion of asking truckies to stop or hinder the RSPCA inspectors is openly seeking vigilante behavior. I would ask you to also look at section 31E of the Animal Welfare Act which refers to hindering an inspector. You should think yourself very lucky that the RSPCA did not consider charges of Hinder against you or Lola because of your behaviour.

If that wasn't enough you made disparaging and defamatory comments about RSPCA staff yourself, and allowed disgusting, immature and venomous comments to remain on your page from some of your supporters, then you outrageously suggest that its OK for these people to make their comments because in your mind you judge people by their actions. With that in mind I will judge you by your actions and determine that for you to allow those comments to be made, and left without monitoring the commentary, demonstrates to responsible members of the community that you advocate that thinking and consequently should be held in the same contempt.

To review a few comments: You accused Simon Richards of being involved in “human rights abuse” from that your supporters followed on with comments referring to he and other RSPCA staff as murderers, Nazi’s, Simon Richards was called a “towrag” and one comment that Simon Richards mother was good in bed, another suggesting that fat pig of an inspector should be put down. They are only a few of the examples which I have screenshots of, and you allowed them to remain on your page!

Now to a legal principle that applies to Facebook. You are held accountable for comments made on your page as the page owner, regardless of what you might believe, it is similar to a publisher who is responsible for the production and sale of a book in which offensive comments exist, you as owner of that page have the responsibility to monitor that page and remove comments of the nature described above as soon as practicable, many of the comments I referred to above remained on your page for a week. This also refutes the fact that you were hacked as you suggested was the case.

Your courage is questionable, as an example of this I refer to the comical YouTube video where you sledged the inspectors………from the other side of a fence! You knew where they were, if you really wanted to challenge them you could have walked around to the car and challenged them face to face, but no, you chose you sneak up using a fence for cover and try to belittle them from the other side of a fence….What a hero!

I heard this morning you were on the radio over the weekend, waffling on about hate pages on Social Media, I wonder, did you tell them about your page and the hatred you have encouraged, did you tell them that you encouraged followers to threaten, harass and demean regulators and others who oppose your views? Perhaps I should send them the screenshots? But I probably don’t have to, because if your fervor to seek public attention you have encouraged listeners to look at these pages, and when they do they can draw their own conclusions.

I question you as a man of supposed principle as you proclaim yourself to be. If you have any intestinal fortitude and community spirit you will apologise to those who follow you on your page. You should apologise to the RSPCA, to the Police and to anyone you have questioned, demeaned or threatened, you should apologise for lying. If you can’t do this then you prove you are unworthy of any serious consideration not only as a member of parliament, but as a responsible member of the community.

I couldn't go with reminding you that the animal welfare community is large, but close knit in the main, so it should come as no surprise that I know of a vet who is aware that your wife and you called on to come to your sanctuary to shoot a nuisance Kangaroo, the vet refused to do so, because there was nothing wrong with it.

I live in your electorate, and I am, in my opinion a reasonable, objective person, I have no political leaning, but don’t be surprised if, in the near future you see me publicly explaining to the Wakefield electorate why they should not vote for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Snook   

Mark has posted this comment on his facebook page. I'm trying to get confirmation whether the case is actually set to go to trial in Adelaide on July 24th because as I understand it, that will mean that evidence will start being presented rather than it just being lawyers arguing amongst themselves and putting motions forward etc..

9125788792_f2ba03eaae_o.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was at Moorook today, maybe Lola decided not to fill him in :laugh: If it is a trial date then you are right Mark, a day for celebration and one day closer to getting those poor animals into proper homes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Snook   

I have heard from a very reliable source that the case isn't set for trial yet and that it's far too early for the case to have progressed to that point. The hearing on the 24th was a brief teleconference taken up with both parties seeking adjournment and relocation of the matter to Adelaide. As I understand it, the relocation to Adelaide has been granted but it has most definitely not been set for trial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Linda K   

be very scared

Mark Aldridge

18 hours ago

Since March this year and my interactions with the RSPCA, being spokesperson for Moorook shelter and all the legals and side stories relating to the past few months, i have not been able to get my mind of the topic of animal welfare, in particular the legal side of all the cases I have been privy to. I have spoken regularly with people involved in cases all over the country, and in fact 3 cases here in SA that are ongoing. I have spoken to friends in the legal and political arenas and debated my ideals on the matter, I have such an interest, I have read most case studies, chatted to whistle blowers and I am involved in a national expose.

From my personal point of view every case so far is a debacle, every charge made by the RSPCA has lacked compassion and indeed fair play, their legal views are out of balance and not supported by common law equity, the defence cases are just as flawed, they act as though they must defend actions that were inept at law in the first place.

The use of media in most cases has been unjust in the reporting, the waste of hard earned money ear marked for animal welfare is wasted on over the top prosecutions that are all about increasing powers to those who know little about how such powers should be used.

Animal welfare is about the protection of animals, not about protecting any individuals personal position or indeed their corporations good name, it is about supporting and backing up carers to do what they do best.

I will now continue my studies and step up my fight for animal welfare reforms, but the issues in the most are legal based, so expect to see me standing up in a more proactive manner in the future, and to those in animal welfare enforcement, expect to see my name on a regular basis, I suggest you pull your heads in and start to consider the animals best interests before you act in the future.

Again with this expose - it must be going to be a corker the way he keeps trotting it out, not to mention his knowledge of all these other cases. And actually, the way he has been going on about Lola, I would say he has been all about protecting her personal position - funnily enough I thought that animal welfare was more to do with the animals receiving appropriate care, being kept in appropriate conditions, and their health and well being attended to - guess I am glad we have him to tell us what it is really all about. And as for this comment

I suggest you pull your heads in and start to consider the animals best interests before you act in the future
:rofl: Oh yes, coz all of what he did at Moorook was all about that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:confused: I guess the meeting he claimed to have booked with the RSPCA CEO (quoted in a previous post) went down like a lead fart?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He has just embarked on a hard core campaign to get us all to shut up as he now knows we mean business and aren't scared of bullies and he is copping it form all angles. You wouldn't believe some of the shit he has been pulling with his imaginary friends. He also finally admitted he is Cinch as well. I think that I'm here to stay bitches is in response to me telling him yesterday that I will basically dog him till the day he dies if he keeps posting lies. Not trying to say I'm all that and it's all about me but the timing and what he says seems to fit. Considering I have yet to see one thing he has posted that has turned out to be true other than his own name I can't see that he has a snowflake's hope in Hell of getting anyone to listen to him. He has also mounted and lost two supreme court challenges and cannot get one bit of legislation he quotes correct. Very sad indeed :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tdierikx   

:confused: I guess the meeting he claimed to have booked with the RSPCA CEO (quoted in a previous post) went down like a lead fart?

Somehow I don't see the RSPCA SA CEO being led by MA with regards to any animal welfare issues... *grin*

T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mita   

Very well written... maybe that guy should run for parliament instead... lol!

T.

And he signed his name. Good for him.

I agree that someone like this would be great value in public life. His comments about juvenile... & often, vile... name-calling are most welcome!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlackJaq   

Have been wondering what is happening over there now (down there?)

Any news on the Moorook situation?

Lol at the lead fart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skelp2   

In the process of looking for a rescue dog for myself, I stumbled across this thread and read through quite a lot of it, as it intrigued me why some people seemed to be so incredibly passionate with their derision of what seems to be a well known and well respected organisation.

I must admit to being stunned and actually quite disgusted at the level of nastiness and vindictiveness shown to a rescue organisation and to those who have tried to help them.

Have some of you nothing better to do with your lives than sit behind a keyboard to sling innuendo and invective at people? Are you all perhaps retired, or are perhaps bitter and/or bored and have so much time on your hands that you spend it being keyboard vigilantes? Have any of you actually been to this rescue organisation and helped them out at any time?

I am sure that there are lots of rescue centres or organisations out there who may need volunteers. Perhaps your time would be better spent helping people or dogs than hindering and harassing them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
*kirty*   

Haha the vast majority of people posting in this thread work tirelessly in rescue. Hoarding animals, warehousing animals and keeping animals in sub-standard conditions is NOT ethical rescue. I run a private rescue myself and as much as I wish I could save everything, I know that I can't. So I focus on rescuing properly - with proper quarantine, safe and enriching housing, appropriate training and socialisation, and the best food I can afford. Taking on more animals would negatively impact the quality of life for the current fosters. Sometimes people need to realise their limitations and that understand the 'save everything at whatever cost' is not always in the best interest of the animals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it intrigued me why some people seemed to be so incredibly passionate with their derision of what seems to be a well known and well respected organisation.

Are you saying Moorook is a well respected organisation? I want to check you really mean that. If you have read this thread you should know a bit more about what really happens at Moorook. I guess if you think hoarders who are up on some pretty serious cruelty charges and keep unrehomeable dogs for years on end in small cages till they go mad are well respected then I don't think anything I say will change your mind. I won't even start on the cat situation :mad Thankfully most people know this is wrong and are doing all they can to help these animals after years of rspca inactivity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skelp2   

it intrigued me why some people seemed to be so incredibly passionate with their derision of what seems to be a well known and well respected organisation.

Are you saying Moorook is a well respected organisation? I want to check you really mean that. If you have read this thread you should know a bit more about what really happens at Moorook. I guess if you think hoarders who are up on some pretty serious cruelty charges and keep unrehomeable dogs for years on end in small cages till they go mad are well respected then I don't think anything I say will change your mind. I won't even start on the cat situation :mad Thankfully most people know this is wrong and are doing all they can to help these animals after years of rspca inactivity.

I gather you have been there then, have inspected the premises thoroughly and know everything there is to know about it, based on your personal observations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rebanne   

it intrigued me why some people seemed to be so incredibly passionate with their derision of what seems to be a well known and well respected organisation.

Are you saying Moorook is a well respected organisation? I want to check you really mean that. If you have read this thread you should know a bit more about what really happens at Moorook. I guess if you think hoarders who are up on some pretty serious cruelty charges and keep unrehomeable dogs for years on end in small cages till they go mad are well respected then I don't think anything I say will change your mind. I won't even start on the cat situation :mad Thankfully most people know this is wrong and are doing all they can to help these animals after years of rspca inactivity.

I gather you have been there then, have inspected the premises thoroughly and know everything there is to know about it, based on your personal observations?

if you had bothered to read the whole thread then you might have some answers to your questions skelp2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Linda K   

clearly Skelp, you haven't really read this thread properly at all, or bothered to look at the photos posted by the supporters, or even looked closely at the vision captured on the TT shows, and really had a good look at the conditions that the animals are being warehoused under. And as for helping, if you also bothered reading this thread, you would have seen that help, until recently, was the last thing accepted by the owner. You may also think that 1 person can adequately look after 120 dogs and umpteen cats (at figures quoted variously between 40-80), I don't, no matter how fabulous the conditions are, let alone in the substandard ones here that need an army to come and help clean up before an inspection can occur - in that case, just what are the conditions that the animals are left in the rest of the time? And if you also do not get that the person who took over as the spokesman made everything a million times more difficult with such a belligerent attitude, which he is now planning on unleashing (no pun intended), on the BSL and other rescue groups foolish enough to take him on board (and whether they want him to or not), as well as intending to stand as an independent and also letting loose there with his brand of logic, then I am guessing you might just be one of his friends, and nothing we have said here will make the slightest bit of difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
casowner   

Haha the vast majority of people posting in this thread work tirelessly in rescue. Hoarding animals, warehousing animals and keeping animals in sub-standard conditions is NOT ethical rescue. I run a private rescue myself and as much as I wish I could save everything, I know that I can't. So I focus on rescuing properly - with proper quarantine, safe and enriching housing, appropriate training and socialisation, and the best food I can afford. Taking on more animals would negatively impact the quality of life for the current fosters. Sometimes people need to realise their limitations and that understand the 'save everything at whatever cost' is not always in the best interest of the animals.

exactly no kill does not or should not mean no life, just because you rescue doesn't mean that gives you the right to hoard and make animals like in inappropriate situation and allow a semi feral cat population grow. Many well respected rescuers have posted in this thread, ethical, responsible rescuers who do the right thing by the animals, not themselves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×