I simply believe that a petition has to be suitable for the purpose - in fact, it has to HAVE a purpose.

Nicky It was prepaired by a member of Parliment. Good enough for you?

Straight away I contacted Glenyse and sent it down to her. She said she didnt know they had brought out electronic petitions but she didnt belive in petitions anyway. So she wasnt interested.
However when I called to leave a message if she wasnt going to do it we would.
Someone answered the phone late on Sunday evening- It was Lyn and she had just started with AA.
Straight away I could tell the difference. The polite manner the willingness to discuss Animal Welfare issues.
She as promised called back a week later to inform us Glenyse had agreed to run a petition. Now Of course Glenyse mentioned the petitions world wide all the time.
Also the uni lawyers groups and many others things they got the idea from pale off.
( Which includeds FYI Nicky the investigations and evidence.)

The court case in a lessor scale. Crickey Nicky dont forget she told us in the begining that AA did NOT do live exports and that it was too political.She said ring green peace or your nearset Animal Liberation group.
( Knowing all the time they work under her umbrella.)

I think Gleynse has an amazing amount of knowledge Nicky and we all need her involved BUT her personality is much like yours and THATS why in twenty years Animal Welfare is riddled with inta fighting.

Frankly its a discrace. I say put Lyn and Mark Pearson in charge.

But put them there for that purpose. If they dont make a difference then keep going until you find someone with a decent personality and people skills because shes got none.

btw Many people say the same thing that AA needs a new leader.
Shes been in that position over twenty years Nicky.
Time for a change IMOP. I think that is true of most organisations TBO

Nicky said

Simply because she has chosen not to adopt Pale’s philosophy is no reason to demand that she be removed, nor is she likely to be.

Pale Comments
Of course that is no reason and I am not demanding anything.

However if AA are against Pales philosophy then that needs to be closely examined and is a different matter.

After all pale is saying lets 'do more' than demand the Government reopen abattoirs to faze out live exports.

Let’s work with farmers and Muslims and others to 'ensure' that changes happen. However to YOU AND PETA AND AA thats a Sin! Interesting.



The counter argument ALSO must be should AA as the peak leaders HAVE the 'right' to black list our organization especially given we work in conjunction with RSPCA Qld on live exports.

It’s an interesting question at law if nothing else and has been discussed by Government heads more than once.

It’s sort of like Rudd saying he won’t have anything to do with one particular group.

Nicky said
I believe she has a big following.
Pale comments
Yes she does but following isn’t what people should do. She should inform her members of our programe.

"Let them makeup their own minds."! Not dictate and say if you talk to pale your off our members list.

After all I have it in writing the Handle with Care intend to seek meetings with the very same people we have held MOUs with for years.

We invited them ALL to join us many times as a matter of record.

Nicky it would seem they ALL agree PALES lead the way wouldn’t it.

BUT Old Hugh and G want the credit for our forward thinking.

IF that wouldn’t stuff up the program we wouldn’t mind BUT its HAS caused huge problems.

That DOESNT help the animals

It damages them.

Also what did you mean in your posts when you said

" I am tired of PETA and AA little Agendas.

fyi So are we.

*I made my point/s. I have given up going over the same old ground with you.*

Nicky you have made your points, but they do not disprove my
points of reason about nature.

As you have no answer to my points, of course you will say nothing,
for your ego would not admit that you are wrong and that
the core of your philosophy is flawed and simply about how
you feel, not the realities of nature.

Fair enough. The Catholics take the same approach, just wish
reality away, as you do.

Hi all

PALE, it is not up to Glenys Oojges, Animals Australia or anyone else to tell people about what you do, that is up to you to do. Nor have I described what you do as a "sin", I have simply said I do not want to be part of it, for a number of reasons. Animals Australia has obviously decided the same and that is their right too. There is no evidence to suggest that anyone has "blacklisted" PALE, or voiced any like criticism of the RSPCA - just what do you mean by "blacklisting"? Animals Australia clearly has a working relationship with the RSPCA now, which rather defeats your argument. The Handle with Care groups also have the right to seek discussions with whomever they choose; they do not need your permission.

The following is completely incomprehensible:-

"Glenyse had agreed to run a petition. Now Of course Glenyse mentioned the petitions world wide all the time.
Also the uni lawyers groups and many others things they got the idea from pale off.
( Which includeds FYI Nicky the investigations and evidence.)"

Was your petition ever PRESENTED to (and accepted by) Parliament? I thought not. Nor, I suggest, are you really in a position to criticize the "personalities" of others; we are not the people threatening legal action at every opportunity and abusing everyone who disagrees with us. Have you ever thought that THOSE are the sorts of reasons why people won't work with you? THAT is what harms the animal advocacy movement, not the activities of (or the people in) the other groups.

I'd stake our credibility against yours any day.

The post "I am tired of PETA and AA and their agendas" I quoted directly from a post of yours; it was certainly not my statement.

Nicky

Nicky said

There is no evidence to suggest that anyone has "blacklisted" PALE,
pale questions.
Nicky are you sure about that? If so why? Considering you claim to have no membership or contact with PETA and AA.

N
Was your petition ever PRESENTED to (and accepted by) Parliament?
P
Yup sure was.
N
Nor, I suggest, are you really in a position to criticize the "personalities" of others;

pale- Again Nicky how do you claim to know so much about AA or PALE.?
I put it to you that you ARE involved with a group and you came into OLO in the first place to discredit pale.

N
"we" are not the people threatening legal" action at every opportunity and abusing everyone who disagrees with us.

P
Er, Nicky who is WE.? I think you just shot yourself in the foot and shown yourself to be dishonest.

Also Nicky it wasnt US who threatend legal action against Animals Australia.
It was Animals Australia who threatended legal action against pale. Why? Because we repeated something Yabby said.

That is when I spoke with their inhouse lawyer.
N
THAT is what harms the animal advocacy movement, not the activities of (or the people in) the other groups.

P Nicky you are the only one doing that.

You guys have a problem with us because we have out own opinions and programes. We are not into yes sir no sir three bags full sir.

N
I'd stake our credibility against yours any day.
P

'OUR' Theres that word again 'Ours'- 'We'. Why do you tell yabby and the others fibs claiming your not a member or involved with AA and PETA. Its clearly untrue.
N
The post "I am tired of PETA ...

P Oh Ok, I must have been thinking out loud. So where are your hero`s Nicky.

Why not ask Igred Hugh and your buddy to come on OLO and debate us on live exports.

Speaking of chickens!

1. PALE, I am not a member of any animal advocacy group. I used the term "we" figuratively because we have a commonality of philosophy which is not shared by PALE. That does not mean that I have not had communications with them, however, and I never claimed otherwise.

2. Can you give me the Hansard reference/link for the day on which your petition was presented in Parliament please? (And I don't mean Animals Australia's petition, presented by Andrew Bartlett)

3. I have no information on what your definition of "blacklisting" is so I have no idea what form your notion of being "blacklisted" took. But it would be unlikely to have had anything to do with any association with the RSPCA, and everything to do with how you behave to people

4. If you published something that was clearly intended to be confidential, then it is likely that someone will do something about legal action against you, and I'd be prepared to bet that it wasn't the first time you have done something like that for personal gain

5. I know enough about PALE from the expressions of delusion, paranoia and threats of legal action just targetted at me - and that doesn't include all the others. They're not hard to find, there are so many of them. That's the personality problem, it is not with any of the other groups,who, from what I can tell, seem to be able to interact with each other coherently and professionally.

6. That is how you are doing more damage to the animal welfare movement, with your rantings, than anyone else in Australia. Think about it.

7. If you want any of these people to enter debates with you you should stop libelling them on these threads and ask them nicely.

Nicky