This is a placeholder text
Group text
by lidia on 21 July 2011 - 08:07
So Abbey Normal, you are off again eh? Off without answering the burning questions of the day which was Did Charles Pope PM you with some of the information you have been demanding? and did you bother to follow that information up?
Being as it seems you are off (again!) and seem to be selective about what you'll answer, I will answer for you..................... Yes, you were given the information and No, you didnt do anything about it . So just how bothered about the truth are you REALLY?.
Not at all I would say!
You just continued to kick a guy who didnt want to post other peoples personal details on a public forum.
Its not the facts you want, its the audience for your own opinion.
Far from tarnishing the reputation of all GSD rescues, this thread seems to have raised awareness of 2 of them in particular and begs the question WHY?, are Chequers BAGSD continuing to support one of them?
There are other, welll established, GSD Rescues, registered with the Charity Commission that are run by reputable people well known in this breed. I don't hear stories about them like the ones in this discussion!
Being as it seems you are off (again!) and seem to be selective about what you'll answer, I will answer for you..................... Yes, you were given the information and No, you didnt do anything about it . So just how bothered about the truth are you REALLY?.
Not at all I would say!
You just continued to kick a guy who didnt want to post other peoples personal details on a public forum.
Its not the facts you want, its the audience for your own opinion.
Far from tarnishing the reputation of all GSD rescues, this thread seems to have raised awareness of 2 of them in particular and begs the question WHY?, are Chequers BAGSD continuing to support one of them?
There are other, welll established, GSD Rescues, registered with the Charity Commission that are run by reputable people well known in this breed. I don't hear stories about them like the ones in this discussion!
by lidia on 21 July 2011 - 08:07
Quote: Seen these posts so many times, faceless brainwashed do-gooders hiding behind fake profiles slagging off the UK-GSR, at least people know me
Yes they know you Paul. You are listed in your rescues February issue of the newsletter as: Name: Paul Duxbury Also known as: Dux, Duxie or 2nd in Command
Queston is, why, earlier in this discussion, when someone suggested that was who you were, did you come back at them with foul mouthed abuse accusing them of speaking foul brown vomit or some similar term which seemed to me, a bit rich coming from YOU!
by Abby Normal on 21 July 2011 - 11:07
Lidia
If you or anyone else tries to tarnish any rescue's reputation ON A PUBLIC FORUM, then I think it is the least you can do to provide supporting evidence in the same arena. No-one MADE Charlespope start this thread. His choice, and why put it on a public forum if you don't expect any questions? Do you just expect people to BLINDLY believe everything. Wrong.
To answer your (burning???) question Charlespope PM'd me some information YESTERDAY.....so WOW, I've been very slack in not 'doing anything about it'. Maybe you should get your facts right before you plunge in LOL, and actually know what is going on. In any case, I have no intention of doing anything about it.........that is clearly down to you and Charlespope. If you have valid evidence of wrongdoing, either with the dogs or financially, then go through the proper channels.
Also, I didn't ask for any information to be sent to me at any time. My opinion has always been if you want to condemn a rescue on a public forum and get those people on board, then have the balls to put that 'information' out there publicly too. If it is the truth, what is the problem in putting it out there? The 'information' he sent me was the name and address of a fosterer used by UK GSR, who was banned from keeping dogs. Whats to 'do anything about'. I have accepted this as substantiated, so what is there to do about it? I have PM'd him back, perhaps you should check in with him, I am sure you can get a copy of my response to him.
I don't have any particular desire to engage in PMs with him. But I would say, no rescue has access to information about any convictions/bans of anyone who approaches them to either foster or permanently adopt a dog. It could happen to any rescue. The test is whether a rescue continued to use someone with such a known conviction. That was my reply to him, so now you are in the picture.
and begs the question WHY?, are Chequers BAGSD continuing to support one of them?
Well maybe Charlesp just didn't provide sufficient evidence of wrongdoing, If he had, I would guess that they wouldn't be supporting them any more.
If you or anyone else tries to tarnish any rescue's reputation ON A PUBLIC FORUM, then I think it is the least you can do to provide supporting evidence in the same arena. No-one MADE Charlespope start this thread. His choice, and why put it on a public forum if you don't expect any questions? Do you just expect people to BLINDLY believe everything. Wrong.
To answer your (burning???) question Charlespope PM'd me some information YESTERDAY.....so WOW, I've been very slack in not 'doing anything about it'. Maybe you should get your facts right before you plunge in LOL, and actually know what is going on. In any case, I have no intention of doing anything about it.........that is clearly down to you and Charlespope. If you have valid evidence of wrongdoing, either with the dogs or financially, then go through the proper channels.
Also, I didn't ask for any information to be sent to me at any time. My opinion has always been if you want to condemn a rescue on a public forum and get those people on board, then have the balls to put that 'information' out there publicly too. If it is the truth, what is the problem in putting it out there? The 'information' he sent me was the name and address of a fosterer used by UK GSR, who was banned from keeping dogs. Whats to 'do anything about'. I have accepted this as substantiated, so what is there to do about it? I have PM'd him back, perhaps you should check in with him, I am sure you can get a copy of my response to him.
I don't have any particular desire to engage in PMs with him. But I would say, no rescue has access to information about any convictions/bans of anyone who approaches them to either foster or permanently adopt a dog. It could happen to any rescue. The test is whether a rescue continued to use someone with such a known conviction. That was my reply to him, so now you are in the picture.
and begs the question WHY?, are Chequers BAGSD continuing to support one of them?
Well maybe Charlesp just didn't provide sufficient evidence of wrongdoing, If he had, I would guess that they wouldn't be supporting them any more.
by lidia on 21 July 2011 - 12:07
Still here Abby Normal? Now what a surprise!
If it is the truth, what is the problem in putting it out there?
If there was no problem putting that type of information out there, don't you think we'd all have ready access to details of paedophiles? and that dog rescues could quite easily check who is banned and who isnt? ........Have you never heard of the data protection act?
If it is the truth, what is the problem in putting it out there?
If there was no problem putting that type of information out there, don't you think we'd all have ready access to details of paedophiles? and that dog rescues could quite easily check who is banned and who isnt? ........Have you never heard of the data protection act?
by Abby Normal on 21 July 2011 - 17:07
Thank you Lidia for validating the fact that this rescue had no access to information (any more than other rescues do) to check on convictions/bans.
I think you are a little mixed up about the Data Protection Act, but it doesn't matter. What you can state on a forum (if true) is vastly different to having information stored about you by an organisation, and the access the public have to it, and how and where it may be reproduced. More pertinently, if you had been paying attention, Charlesp was never asked by me to state people's personal details, just the details of the dogs, the actual accusations (not just vague references to them). He chose not to. It now seems the only real 'ammo' he has is the fosterer, which you have agreed with me the rescue could not have foreseen, otherwise surely he would have included in his (unsolicited) PM to me.
Yes, I can come back to a thread as often as I like, just like you can indulge in rescue attacking threads over and over again - freedom is indeed a wonderful thing.
I think you are a little mixed up about the Data Protection Act, but it doesn't matter. What you can state on a forum (if true) is vastly different to having information stored about you by an organisation, and the access the public have to it, and how and where it may be reproduced. More pertinently, if you had been paying attention, Charlesp was never asked by me to state people's personal details, just the details of the dogs, the actual accusations (not just vague references to them). He chose not to. It now seems the only real 'ammo' he has is the fosterer, which you have agreed with me the rescue could not have foreseen, otherwise surely he would have included in his (unsolicited) PM to me.
Yes, I can come back to a thread as often as I like, just like you can indulge in rescue attacking threads over and over again - freedom is indeed a wonderful thing.
by GSD4life1 on 23 July 2011 - 11:07
Quote : The recent incident has only just happened so I am watching the results unfold too, the dog is still in the home so would be unfair to name it at this point.
It would be wrong to name the dog at ANY point due to the fact it was not the dog at fault. The fault lies at the person who placed the dog into that particular home which was not suitable and still remains in the same position to potentially do again.. The dog in question will make a super companion to the right family and this Gsd should not be tarnished due to the lack of thought and competence of the person whom took the decision to place it there knowing the Gsd did not get along with small dogs which they knew would come into contact with..
I would also like to add that at this moment the person responsible for this and Jayne Shenstone are placing the blame on an innocent person who has now left the rescue, this was the easy choice from them to been seen to be clear of any wrongs. The said person actually left due to the fact Jayne Shenstone has permitted the person who is at fault to remain in a position of responsibility over the dogs for that area.
There are 4 victims in this tragedy. The tragic death of the family's little dog, the foster mum who was not given enough information on her foster gsd, the gsd that was placed wrongly into the foster home, and a now ex rescue worker who gave their time day in day out to rehoming German Shepherds.
It would be wrong to name the dog at ANY point due to the fact it was not the dog at fault. The fault lies at the person who placed the dog into that particular home which was not suitable and still remains in the same position to potentially do again.. The dog in question will make a super companion to the right family and this Gsd should not be tarnished due to the lack of thought and competence of the person whom took the decision to place it there knowing the Gsd did not get along with small dogs which they knew would come into contact with..
I would also like to add that at this moment the person responsible for this and Jayne Shenstone are placing the blame on an innocent person who has now left the rescue, this was the easy choice from them to been seen to be clear of any wrongs. The said person actually left due to the fact Jayne Shenstone has permitted the person who is at fault to remain in a position of responsibility over the dogs for that area.
There are 4 victims in this tragedy. The tragic death of the family's little dog, the foster mum who was not given enough information on her foster gsd, the gsd that was placed wrongly into the foster home, and a now ex rescue worker who gave their time day in day out to rehoming German Shepherds.
by lidia on 24 July 2011 - 08:07
Paul. What has your post got to do with Chequers BAGSD Show?....................Other,perhaps, than that several members of Chequers BAGSD are also associated with the rescue that you run and will take every opportunity to bad mouth the rescue it suited you all to be associated with for long enough until setting up on your own?
Its just a pity that BAGSD is being used in this way IMO
Its just a pity that BAGSD is being used in this way IMO
by noddi on 24 July 2011 - 09:07
for gwad sake,let it drop Lidia.Please let this thread die a death.Its over n done with.All this thread is about is 2 rescues who have a similar name n members/volenteers from both who dislike each other.This pettiness is not ABOUT THE DOGS,its about ppl.,so please OLI.....DELETE THIS THREAD.Its getting pretty boring n annoying.No one Lidia is taking any notice but the members of these said rescues who keep coming on n bumping it n before yu come on n say I,VE BUMPED IT TO THE TOP YES I KNOW BUT I WISH OLI TO DELETE IT AS ITS RUN ITS COURSE.PLEASE OLI,THANKS.Carole S.
by lidia on 24 July 2011 - 13:07
If thats the way you feel about it Carole, then why you even bothering to read it? No one is forcing you!
Leave it to be followed by people who are bothered about whats happening to unwanted dogs these days.
Leave it to be followed by people who are bothered about whats happening to unwanted dogs these days.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
