germanshepherdrescue.freeforums.org

Please follow this link to the Large animal charity that doesn't let us publish their name's website to read a statement from the Society's director of animal welfare promotion ... http://www.Large animal charity that doesn't let us publish their name.org.uk/servlet/Satellite?pagename=Large animal charity that doesn't let us publish their name/RSPCARedirect&pg=AdviceCentre&marker=1&articleId=1235381125053

So being chained up on a front doorstep all night is ok?

Like it said in a previous post:

'One of the Large animal charity that doesn't let us publish their name’s advertisements on television (from memory) shows a dog chained up in the daytime and night time, in all weathers - and the theme of the advert was to state that no animal should be kept in these conditions - and the Large animal charity that doesn't let us publish their name were appealing for funds to stop this happening!'

So why is it acceptable for Bruno and Lulu to be kept this way? Clearly they are misleading the public using adverts like this in order to obtain donations.

Bruno and Lulu have been under regular surveillance for some considerable time now (not by the Large animal charity that doesn't let us publish their name I hasten to add) and there exists now, a large catalogue of photographs which do tell the whole story. The Large animal charity that doesn't let us publish their name claim the photographs are 'snapshots at a particular point in time and do not tell the whole story'. The evidence we now have will show that claim to be incorrect.

The last paragraph of their statement says:

'In summary we do not believe that overall, this constitutes a lack of care or a breach under Section 9 of the AWA which deals with the animals' needs.'

Can someone please explain what 'overall' means in this situation? Is this a bit like saying it's a little bit cruel but not quite cruel enough?
The Large animal charity that doesn't let us publish their name are very good at going into situations when there is a TV crew present and where they are pulling out dead or dying animals but where are they when the likes of Bruno and Lulu (who have been subjected to appalling neglect/mental and ? physical cruelty over a long period of time) need their help? The inspectors have only revisited Bruno and Lulu because of the pressure they were under when the story went public. It is my understanding that they notify the owner when they are calling.

The Large animal charity that doesn't let us publish their name have learnt an important lesson from this case. The internet and viral marketing are powerful tools which means they can no longer fob people off with their lame excuses as to why they are failing to help needy animals. People donate to the Large animal charity that doesn't let us publish their name because they think their money is helping animals in distress. It hasn't helped Lulu or Bruno and it didn't help Spike or Sasha.

There are many of us that still believe that the Large animal charity that doesn't let us publish their name are implementing the AWA according to their own policy and procedures and that it is not being used in the way it was intended. It's easy to prosecute a little old lady for making her dog too fat!!

The pressure we have put the Large animal charity that doesn't let us publish their name under, shows that we can have an impact. When people stop donating to the Large animal charity that doesn't let us publish their name, they will have no choice but to sit up and take notice. Times are tough now that we are in recession, people have less to donate and will be more concerned that their money is actually being used the way they intended it to be used.

Bit of a cop out response..............
so when the pictures where taken of LULU curling up to sleep in the snow she had access to shelter!!! Don't think so!
so it's ok for a dog to be chained up - would they let me rehome a dog if I said I was going to chain it up - Don't think so!
Why wait until an animal is near deaths door before intervening, the impression created by these cases is that it's cheaper to have animals PTS than to spend time and money getting them better.

Also oon another matter why don't they have the common courtesy to reply to emails?????

Oh dear! This Large animal charity that doesn't let us publish their name statement all sounds very vague and defensive and bears no explanation of reality – what has been said and to whom; what has been done for the animals in terms of care now and in the future? I expect they have to be careful of what they put in writing in case we prove them wrong.

John Rolls, Director of Animal Welfare Promotions (marketing isn’t it?)
states : “vigorous” investigations (this hasn’t been explained) – “by our inspectors on a number of occasions” . How many inspectors on how many occasions? I make it three inspectors therefore three visits so far. There are 365 days in a year so for 362 days the Large animal charity that doesn't let us publish their name inspectors are totally unaware of the conditions of those poor dogs. I know they haven’t quite made it to 362 days yet but (by fobbing us off) they are doing their “vigorous” best to get there!

By the very fact that three inspectors have gone to 103 Harcourt Road states surely that there is cause for concern to return to that address, also bearing in mind that the owner was aware that he was going to be “vigorously” investigated. Any normal caring person would not have to be “vigorously” investigated.

John Rolls, Director of - - Promotions has confirmed that the “snapshots” don’t tell the whole story.
Thats absolutely right, the situation is ongoing and we are trying to tell him the whole story except he just wont listen. Perhaps John Rolls could give us his email address and we will supply him with a regular log of Lulu and Bruno’s conditions since June 2008 to date. Perhaps he would like to see for himself and make a random-check visit of this uncaring and ignorant owner of two dogs who still uses and abuses them for purely guarding (of what?) purposes.

John Rolls I cant tell you how disappointed I am, in the Large animal charity that doesn't let us publish their name, and that you have to come up with this pathetic tone of authority to make empty meaningless statements. You make the Large animal charity that doesn't let us publish their name look authoritative and uncaring. I am also experienced in life and with animals for the past 25 years and I know that normal caring people do not keep animals in these conditions day and night. I have donated to the Large animal charity that doesn't let us publish their name for years but not anymore and I will make it my business to warn as many people as I can that the Large animal charity that doesn't let us publish their name are not proactive when it comes to situations like this - how can they be with only 300 inspectors covering the whole of England and Wales? What are my donations being spent on?

WE ARE THE NORMAL AND CARING GENERAL PUBLIC AND YOU (representing the Large animal charity that doesn't let us publish their name) SHOULD LISTEN TO US.

I would like nothing more than to respond to the Large animal charity that doesn't let us publish their name's response to the LuLu and Bruno neglect case but if i'm honest i can't find enough decent words to do so....Reading the post by Jayne on the advertising campaign where they used the dog chained up day and night, you have to admire the sick sense of wanting to extract money out of the general public that they will stop at no lengths to do so....utterly disgusting!!

I did get a return phone call from a person called Terry Spate over 14days after my original phone call to report this cruelty and in a nut shell he said "I know the photos look quite bad, but the snow has now gone up here", WELL.... thats ok then Terry, chained up in the wind, fog, rain, hale is nowhere near as bad so let them get on with it, you disgust me!!

As you may have noticed the response to this case on this site alone has been fantastic....and this is only the start to try to bring to as many people's attention by donating to the Large animal charity that doesn't let us publish their name as it stands now is like "******* in the ocean" and the sooner a change can be brought forward so the animals in need get what the British public think they are donating to the better!!!

Message to the Large animal charity that doesn't let us publish their name. This one is not going to go away, this is just the start.

These are just two more ‘snapshots’ of these poor dogs’ lives.

This is a picture of Bruno last September chained and asleep around 9.30 p.m. on bare concrete?  This was three days  AFTER  the more proactive Inspector Mark Gent had called and had been lied to by Mr Cotty who claimed that Bruno had shelter in the red container. We have photos to prove that the container was in fact closed all day and night on the day this photo was taken. That container had never ever been left open for either of the dogs. We have proof to show that the container was closed the day after the inspector’s visit and the day after that. As you can see, Bruno had previously been groomed in readiness for the Large animal charity that doesn't let us publish their name.  He looks a different dog to the one already posted on our website where his coat was so scruffy and his right flank looked as if it was infected.


The owners were away from the house from at least mid morning on the 18 September 2008 and had still not returned by 10.30 that evening.   
 
Both dogs were left chained all day.  Lulu was chained to the plastic shed and could not move any distance. You can see from the  photo of Lulu that there is no sign of any food or water anywhere near the shed.  You can also clearly see there is no sign of any ‘fresh’ bedding in the shed as claimed by the Large animal charity that doesn't let us publish their name. In fact there is no bedding at all other than, possibly, a thin piece of carpet.


 
It was after Mark Gent had seen this evidence that he read the ‘riot act’ and the owner swiftly ‘procured’ some security fencing to allow Lulu to be partitioned off at the rear of the property. From September to Christmas or the New Year, Lulu was kept there, unchained, with access to the red container. However, she was never seen being exercised and she began to look dispirited and to lose condition. More recently, the container door has been regularly closed up again, leaving Lulu without shelter.
 
We have a witness that observed the state of her ears and loss of fur on her flanks on 26 January which was reported to the Large animal charity that doesn't let us publish their name on the same day.
 
Large animal charity that doesn't let us publish their name - You have failed these two dogs miserably.

Re: Desperate Situation
by eureka on 01 Mar 2009 09:42

Bruno and Lulu can be seen as symbols of the countless times people have contacted the Large animal charity that doesn't let us publish their name about animal welfare issues with no satisfactory outcome. Evidence of this can be seen by googling sites such as 'Preloved' where many instances have been recorded of people who have contacted the Large animal charity that doesn't let us publish their name and who have either had an unsatisfactory outcome or who have never heard anything from the Large animal charity that doesn't let us publish their name at all. Alternatively you can google "What do people think of the Large animal charity that doesn't let us publish their name?"

It took me three months to bring about some improvement to Bruno and Lulu's situation. And this was only because I made several phone calls, sent several emails, wrote numerous letters, (including letters to Mark Watts the Chief Executive), visited our local branch on more than one occasion, emailed one of the Large animal charity that doesn't let us publish their name's trustees on a number of occasions, and finally gave Mark Watts a 2 week deadline after Bruno had been beaten and had been heard screaming before being chained again, still crying, to the back of this man's house and left all night.

That two week deadline was almost up by the time Mark Gent was put on this case in mid-september 2008.

The Large animal charity that doesn't let us publish their name uses the excuse that they only have 325 inspectors to cover the whole of England and Wales and therefore have to prioritise. If they used only half of the £17,000,000 plus that was spent on generating further funds in 2007, they could double the number of inspectors in the field. I looked at the salaries of inspectors and worked out that, if 325 inpectors received an average salary of £30,000 (Which they definitely do not) then the costs to the Large animal charity that doesn't let us publish their name, using this generous figure, for inspectors salaries will be £9,750,000. This equates to approx 9% of the £114,110,000 incoming resources for 2007. And yet the amount spent on generating further funds was approx 15%.

When I pointed this out to Mark Watts, his response was that the costs for inspectors did not only include their salaries but also their training costs and costs for buildings and other costs involved - hence the figure of £31,635,000 having being spent on the Inspectorate in 2007.

Bearing in mind that central office also held free reserves of cash in excess of £108million at the end of 2007, and that none of the hundreds of millions of poundsworth of money goes to the 174 branches who do the bulk of the hard work at the kennel face so to speak, then it is time - as a matter of public interest - to investigate the modus operandi of the Large animal charity that doesn't let us publish their name.

It does not take much fathoming to recognise that most people would have given up long before I did. But, by now, the Large animal charity that doesn't let us publish their name will have realised that I am not most people.

JOHN ROLLS,
DIRECTOR OF ANIMALWELFARE PROMOTIONS -

What do you say to all this - Your response and action is awaited !

There is a network of amazing animal loving charities and individuals who will all be sadly devastated that you the Large animal charity that doesn't let us publish their name are not using their hard earned money to help STOP THE ABUSE THAT YOU HAVE ADVERTISED ON TELEVISION TO MILLIONS OF VIEWERS MAKING A COMMITMENT TO SAY THAT YOU WILL STOP THIS ABUSE.

ARE YOU DOING THIS LOCALLY? DO YOU HAVE ENOGH INSPECTORS TO BE PROACTIVE?

PROVE IT TO US ON THIS WEBSITE AND TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC OF ENGLAND AND WALES.

There have been allegations in the past, of the Large animal charity that doesn't let us publish their name having an oversized interest in publicity to the detriment of its original (and, in most people's views) true purpose. Perhaps we should start gathering any adverts, newspaper clippings etc and matching them against their actions. The Charity Commission and Advertising Standards Agency would then give qualified opinions on whether the Large animal charity that doesn't let us publish their name is properly spending its income and whether its advertising matched its actions.

RONL