This is a placeholder text
Group text
by seenthelight1 on 01 July 2011 - 12:07
thank you for that i only asked as an internet search on the rescue came up with the following which would tie in with emails earlier in the year
http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-shows-events/150948-uk-german-shepherd-rescue-fun-dog-show-inc-gsd-rally-northants.html
show. which was clearly raising funds for these dogs. if no money was raised for these animals as stated by PaulGSD2 . where did it go
i am of course pleased these dogs are in homes
http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-shows-events/150948-uk-german-shepherd-rescue-fun-dog-show-inc-gsd-rally-northants.html
show. which was clearly raising funds for these dogs. if no money was raised for these animals as stated by PaulGSD2 . where did it go
i am of course pleased these dogs are in homes
by charlesppope on 01 July 2011 - 12:07
"The £4000 was for the complete treatment"
Treatment for dogs born blind?
A vet quotes you 4K for *treatment* so, presumably you kept this quote? and we can all see it?
Shouldn't you be out rescueing a dog somewhere Paul?
by lidia on 01 July 2011 - 14:07
Oooh-la-la Paul. I just *love* it when you're so crude and masterful.
Lets everyone know exactly what they're dealing with.
Lets everyone know exactly what they're dealing with.
by PaulGSD2 on 01 July 2011 - 16:07
Good point Lidia, first let me apologise for my luggage, I am sorry if I have offended anybody, I do not run the UK-GSR, I simply donate the website and cover running costs of these sites, Suzanne will verify this.
It may have appeared in the posts or people have presumed I run the rescue and so speak as a representative, this is not the case, I was merely trying to defend it from the lies that are posted about the rescue and Suzanne. The words are of my own opinion and not that of the UK German shepherd rescue.
Once again I am sorry I have caused any embarrassment to the rescue or its members.
>>Charles<<
You will need to ask the rescue for a copy of the quotation. Just like to point out Charles that despite my repeated requests for the dogs names you still haven't offered any evidence, you are simply side stepping. I can only prsume you are fabricating lies damage a rescue. It is clear that you have no interest in anything good about the rescue but merely like to see the rescue get no funding and prevent the rescue from helping further dogs.
I can't comment on the money raised at the show as I don't work with the rescue that close.
This is my last comment on this matter.
It may have appeared in the posts or people have presumed I run the rescue and so speak as a representative, this is not the case, I was merely trying to defend it from the lies that are posted about the rescue and Suzanne. The words are of my own opinion and not that of the UK German shepherd rescue.
Once again I am sorry I have caused any embarrassment to the rescue or its members.
>>Charles<<
You will need to ask the rescue for a copy of the quotation. Just like to point out Charles that despite my repeated requests for the dogs names you still haven't offered any evidence, you are simply side stepping. I can only prsume you are fabricating lies damage a rescue. It is clear that you have no interest in anything good about the rescue but merely like to see the rescue get no funding and prevent the rescue from helping further dogs.
I can't comment on the money raised at the show as I don't work with the rescue that close.
This is my last comment on this matter.
by Abby Normal on 01 July 2011 - 17:07
Charles, you do seem to be sidestepping, which certainly makes it appear that this is just stirring, for whatever reason. Name the dogs and dates.
You simply haven't backed up anything you have said. Certainly not about the claims you have made about dogs.
If you are deliberately trying to blacken the name of a rescue and preventing it from rescuing dogs, then shame on you whoever you may be.
On the *financial* side, other than an historic conviction (I don't condone it) for benefit fraud, nothing that I can see has indicated any financial irregularities with rescue funds. You seem to infer that a £250 adoption fee means the rescue is coining it in (not excessive when you factor in vet treatment and boarding costs). Some other rescues, as I have shown, charge the same. The case of the blind puppies may also be a case in point. If you want to discover whether anything can be done you are looking at specialist referral centres and lots of £££'s. The rescue centre that I do some work for had a disabled mastiff, quite a youngster. He needed a referral to pinpoint exactly what his problems were, and whether he could be helped. The rescue needed to raise that money before he was referred. A similar situation occurred, in that, as it transpired there was nothing to be done. Those funds were used for other dogs. I know other rescues that have done the same, and some of those with blind puppies. You don't simply assume that because a pup is blind nothing can be done. You find out. If you know differently that she is 'lining her own pocket' - let's have facts again.
At the end of the day she rescued 3 blind puppies and provided a home for 1 of them herself and rehomed the other 2. Good for her, it is not easy to rehome disabled dogs.
I would hate to think that what Paul has said is true, and that you are out to prevent them raising money and thereby reducing the number of GSDs that can be helped.
Paul you did yourself no favours, but I can understand your frustration.
Facts Charles, facts. Dogs, dates, evidence of financial irregularity. If you are going to ask other people to be judge and jury, facts are necessary.
You simply haven't backed up anything you have said. Certainly not about the claims you have made about dogs.
If you are deliberately trying to blacken the name of a rescue and preventing it from rescuing dogs, then shame on you whoever you may be.
On the *financial* side, other than an historic conviction (I don't condone it) for benefit fraud, nothing that I can see has indicated any financial irregularities with rescue funds. You seem to infer that a £250 adoption fee means the rescue is coining it in (not excessive when you factor in vet treatment and boarding costs). Some other rescues, as I have shown, charge the same. The case of the blind puppies may also be a case in point. If you want to discover whether anything can be done you are looking at specialist referral centres and lots of £££'s. The rescue centre that I do some work for had a disabled mastiff, quite a youngster. He needed a referral to pinpoint exactly what his problems were, and whether he could be helped. The rescue needed to raise that money before he was referred. A similar situation occurred, in that, as it transpired there was nothing to be done. Those funds were used for other dogs. I know other rescues that have done the same, and some of those with blind puppies. You don't simply assume that because a pup is blind nothing can be done. You find out. If you know differently that she is 'lining her own pocket' - let's have facts again.
At the end of the day she rescued 3 blind puppies and provided a home for 1 of them herself and rehomed the other 2. Good for her, it is not easy to rehome disabled dogs.
I would hate to think that what Paul has said is true, and that you are out to prevent them raising money and thereby reducing the number of GSDs that can be helped.
Paul you did yourself no favours, but I can understand your frustration.
Facts Charles, facts. Dogs, dates, evidence of financial irregularity. If you are going to ask other people to be judge and jury, facts are necessary.
by leiasmum on 01 July 2011 - 18:07
Charles told me to call him, slated me for not calling him and all he did was gave me the phone number of Kay Waddington!
Again, this has turned into a silly excuse to have a go at somebody, but I do belive it is almost inciting hatred towards an individual- Suzzanne Syers- and that is disgusting and against the law.
Give us some facts or go away Mr.Pope.
p.s. You are all saying it was 3 puppies, Im sure it was only 2.
Again, this has turned into a silly excuse to have a go at somebody, but I do belive it is almost inciting hatred towards an individual- Suzzanne Syers- and that is disgusting and against the law.
Give us some facts or go away Mr.Pope.
p.s. You are all saying it was 3 puppies, Im sure it was only 2.
by charlesppope on 01 July 2011 - 18:07
I simply donate the website and cover running costs of these sites, Suzanne will verify this.
Yeah, right, like she verified her benefit claim?
Read back through what you have posted Paul, and see if you sound like someone who occasionally makes a donation to maintain a website. All of this polite "Sorry I sounded like scum" seems more like a damage limitation exercise to me!
I'm sure your foul mouthed outburst was "all for the dogs" and so will be excused.
Thats what normally happens isnt it?
All that mouthing off and youre not even a representative of the rescue? I *am* disappointed. Seems you are just another anonymous body here who wants to be taken seriously.
To Abby Normal : As for providing proof is concerned, I have made it quite clear how that can be obtained. If you choose not to follow it up then dont complain it wasnt available!
Yeah, right, like she verified her benefit claim?
Read back through what you have posted Paul, and see if you sound like someone who occasionally makes a donation to maintain a website. All of this polite "Sorry I sounded like scum" seems more like a damage limitation exercise to me!
I'm sure your foul mouthed outburst was "all for the dogs" and so will be excused.
Thats what normally happens isnt it?
All that mouthing off and youre not even a representative of the rescue? I *am* disappointed. Seems you are just another anonymous body here who wants to be taken seriously.
To Abby Normal : As for providing proof is concerned, I have made it quite clear how that can be obtained. If you choose not to follow it up then dont complain it wasnt available!
by charlesppope on 01 July 2011 - 18:07
Charles told me to call him, slated me for not calling him and all he did was gave me the phone number of Kay Waddington!
NOT TRUE Leiasmum. I explained to you WHY it should go through Kay Waddington. The same reason I gave on this forum.
Heres the email she sent me since you seem so hell bent on people justifying their self in public!
NOT TRUE Leiasmum. I explained to you WHY it should go through Kay Waddington. The same reason I gave on this forum.
Heres the email she sent me since you seem so hell bent on people justifying their self in public!
| From: | |
| Sent: | |
| To: |
by PaulGSD2 on 01 July 2011 - 18:07
An email of you grassing, still no dogs or dates Worzel.
Charles, you type and talk like Jayne Shenstone, weired that.
Charles, you type and talk like Jayne Shenstone, weired that.
by Abby Normal on 02 July 2011 - 07:07
For me this thread is done.
As far as I am concerned this thread should be removed, since it is attacking someone without providing any validation.
Charles - you put it on this board. You made it public and you should be prepared to back it up with facts, otherwise don't put it here. You are just spreading 'rumours' otherwise.
Your refusal to do so should be noted by everybody. I don't know if this rescue is good or bad, and you have not provided enough to convince me that either way.
If this is a case of two rescues back biting each other then frankly they should have better things to do.
As far as I am concerned this thread should be removed, since it is attacking someone without providing any validation.
Charles - you put it on this board. You made it public and you should be prepared to back it up with facts, otherwise don't put it here. You are just spreading 'rumours' otherwise.
Your refusal to do so should be noted by everybody. I don't know if this rescue is good or bad, and you have not provided enough to convince me that either way.
If this is a case of two rescues back biting each other then frankly they should have better things to do.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
