Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 35 of 35
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    sydney, nsw, australia.
    Posts
    12,773

    Default

    funny how conflict of interest in any other organisation or politician gets them in trouble? but never this lot so far?

    Riana Fern Voglerto QT - The Queensland Times
    10 March at 20:08

    In September 2016 the Animal Welfare League of Queensland, who accomplished zero euthanasia of healthy and sociable animals in just 18 months, lost their 5-year contract with Ipswich City Council to run the pound. They lost this contract to RSPCA Queensland.
    When the AWLQ took over the Ipswich City Council Pound in 2011 they did what they do best, they saved lives. Despite the old and outdated facilities AWLQ, in just a year and a half, established education programs and implemented subsidised desexing programs and achieved zero euthanasia of healthy and sociable animals. These sorts of things are what rescue groups are supposed to do when given the chance to make a difference, so what has the RSPCA accomplished in this time?
    Unfortunately for the city of Ipswich, the RSPCA are a deceitful organisation who do not deserve to be titled as ‘animal rescuers’. What this group has accomplished since taking over the contract for Ipswich City Council late 2016 has been nothing short of disgusting as the most recent statistics have come to light, but where is the media now? During the tender process the Queensland Times could not help but to report on what was happening and what the RSPCA ‘vowed’ to do and whilst that content was completely one-sided there seems to be silence as the truth comes out about just how corrupt the RSPCA are. In one article published by the Queensland Times RSPCA Queensland CEO Mark Townend was quoted saying that, regarding the cats, that they are kept in a “hot shed and we have space inside that people were using before, we want to use it for animals”. Over a year down the track and has this happened? No. In the same article the public were assured that there would be some familiar faces remaining at the centre as the RSPCA played hero and ‘hired’ three former staff members … Are those staff members still employed in Ipswich? No, as a matter of fact they were all used as media stunt and then released before their probation period was met. The same goes for volunteers, where the RSPCA assured all current volunteers at the Hooper St site that they would be welcomed to the team with open arms – I urge you to enquire as to how many previous volunteers are currently active with the RSPCA because I can assure you that this sure did not happen.
    When speaking about the contract itself, there is no secret that the RSPCA requested a $100,000 one-off starting fee to ‘improve’ facilities and it has also been publicised that a condition within this contract was for the Ipswich City Council to build new facilities within three years or face a $200,000 penalty. This is something that was never offered to the AWLQ and in fact, AWLQ was never given any significant (and much needed) upgrades during their five years with the contract. So, what has made the RSPCA so appealing to the council that has allowed them to be walked all over and had their pockets reached into? Surely it cannot be because the recently appointed Mayor of Ipswich City, Andrew Antoniolli, is on the board of the RSPCA … That would be absurd ...
    In the past week the RSPCA Queensland has written a series of articles to local media platforms complaining about how they cannot keep up with the number of ‘unwanted’ pets in the community. So why take over a pound that was running perfectly fine when you can’t cope with the sectors you already handle? Figures have been released showing the RSPCA Queensland outcomes for “surrendered” pets and in Ipswich the statistics are horrid. Not only have there only been 839 adoptions versus a whopping 1769 euthanised, but the total number of animals unaccounted for is 1149 – so where the heck are they?!
    I demand that the RSPCA, those paid by the government to inspect animal abuse cases, are inspected themselves and exposed for the frauds that they are.
    For those of you who made it through this post, I encourage you to please email the Ipswich City Council at council@ipswich.qld.gov.au and just let them know what the people think!



  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    .
    Posts
    5,871

    Default

    I think you are seeing conspiracies where there are non, simply a deliberate misunderstanding of how the legislation and the agency work.

    I also wonder what your agenda is, as stated previously, those who have been pinged by the regulator previously are usually the ones wanting change in a misguided attempt to have their convictions overturned.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Queensland, Australia.
    Posts
    5,974

    Default

    Iíve never had any kind of experience with the rspca good or bad (other than the usual reporting cases and not seeing results) but having worked in public service for many years I can see the perils and conflicts of interest, both potential and realised, implicit in a private organisation having regulatory powers and powers of prosecution. This is particularly obvious given that the industries and bodies it is given regulatory responsibilities over are often in direct conflict or competition with their interests within those industries.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    sydney, nsw, australia.
    Posts
    12,773

    Default

    finally even Media Watch has started asking questions


    GOOD ON YOU Media Watch. Finally ...“If the RSPCA ADOPTS A PRESUMPTION OF GUILT it cant disclaim all responsibility for what happens.”


    The RSPCA and public accountability


    Media Watch

    about 3 weeks ago







    What responsibility does the RSPCA have to the public when it releases footage of alleged animal cruelty?


    https://www.facebook.com/ABCMediaWat...964387339/?t=1

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    sydney, nsw, australia.
    Posts
    12,773

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LisaL View Post
    I think you are seeing conspiracies where there are non, simply a deliberate misunderstanding of how the legislation and the agency work.

    I also wonder what your agenda is, as stated previously, those who have been pinged by the regulator previously are usually the ones wanting change in a misguided attempt to have their convictions overturned.
    well nothing has changed with you anyway.
    but then as Media watch discovered, the only place where the target is presumed guilty

    none of the people I know who are calling for accountabilty have been charged with any offense either. neither was I if your memory is that short.

    they an I learned how egocentric and ignorant of animal health matters the inspectors are.

    Leon Mills went far further in detailing what needs to be done

    Yet he too has never been charged or convicted in fact he has never been even a target

    Yet wrote that letter for all the reasons he outlines so well

    one day when your rose coloured glasses either fade or fall off maybe be actually able to see for yourself the emperor has no clothes

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •