PALE, you are SUCH an embarassment to yourself. You need to keep your various identities straight, you see. It was "TarynW" who claimed to have disabled the Paypal link, THREE YEARS before she said she had joined PALE. I am aware of who Antje Struthman is (although what makes her think the wider community is or should be is a mystery), what is surprising is the outlandish claims made in her name here, still in the same written style of PALE. Sharing password details is very poor business practice, you know.

As for my helping the Police, you have no idea at all. You do not know the level of my knowledge (it is well documented on various threads on which I have clarified the distinction between legislation, Codes of Practice and enforcement). The Police have to date been most appreciative of my assistance and evidence briefs.The level of knowledge of PALE (not to mention its contribution) is possibly another story altogether. As for contacting Animal Liberation about the chickens, what did you expect them to do (given your often expressed criticism of their methods)? ALQ has no powers under the Animal Welfare legislation in Queensland, and in fact your complaint SHOULD have been directed to the DPI, since RSPCA Queensland only does "companion animals" and not animals used in farming. A stunning example of PALE's level of knowledge.

The response I received from the Queensland Department of Fair Trading was quoted on these threads, but I'm quite sure that they they would know better that to want to disclose a private enquiry to the litigious PALE. Why on earth should they? And we only have your words about the sums raised, don't we?

(Continues)

(Continued)

There is nothing especially surprising about the other organizations choosing not to associate themselves with PALE because of its clear and direct involvement in abattoirs. No "animal loving" group would consider such an involvement if it worthy of the name.

While PALE and HKM share common "office bearers" there is a clear link between an organization claiming to be for animal welfare and one that is involved with mass slaughter, and money to change hands in the process. What did you expect? But the reality is probably that that was not the real reason, it has more to do with how PALE abuses, bullies and threatens people and its insatiable drive for control, and any glory that might be around (such as claiming the credit for the AFIC media release).

That's probably the one thing PALE is good at - trying to take credit for the work of other people.

Nicky

*No "animal loving" group would consider such an involvement if it worthy of the name.*

Bollocks. That is as logical as saying that no person can approve
of abortion, if they love babies.

Fact is, either you are away with the fairies about the realities
of life and the world, or you are a realist and accept and understand
nature.

You Nicky, are clearly away with the fairies, when it comes to
reality.

Yabby, you missed the point, as you usually do. No animal advocacy group (and this is just my understanding and would be my expectation of any group should I decide to join one) is that none would want to be part of an organization which shares office bearers/President with a slaughtering operation which could potentially be a source of funding for those office bearers.

I have an excellent relationship with the AMIEU, as it happens, but that doesn't mean I would want a financial involvement with it. We are both clear about our positions. The abortion questions is, as always, totally irrelevant.

Nicky.

Nicky, the abortion issue is not irrelevant at all, for you make
similar claims to the Catholics. One claims the sanctity of the
zygote, the other the sanctity of all other species. Fact is,
reality prevails, there is not room for all the little darlings.

Once again, you are confusing animal welfare and animal liberation,
when you adopt your philosophical position.

You still cannot even get your little mind around why the live
trade exists in the first place. I just heard of another case
where one meatworks in WA closed down 10 years ago, through sheer
union bloodymindedness. Once people think they have a captive market,
they screw the system for all its worth.

We have another case now in WA. The Boyles were planning a meatworks
in York. 3 years of red tape later, the investors pulled the pin
and went elsewhere. For those sorts of reasons, the live trade
exists in the first place!

I have told Gertrude before that I think she is a dreamer and will
never achieve anything. But that does not change the fact that if
there was an efficient meat industry in WA, with open and fair
competition, there would hardly be a live trade.

The only people that I know who have an issue with meatworks are
not people concerned with animal welfare, but people concerned with
animal liberation, two quite distinct philosophies. You confuse
the two and we clearly know what your position is.

Yabby, as I have pointed out before - don't bitch about it, do something about it. I don't care why the live trade exists (although it all has to do with greed) and if farmers go broke when it ends they deserve to, because they know what has been happening to their animals for decades, and even now don't care.

And spare us the MLA gospel about "improvements" in the Middle East, we have seen the evidence, and continue to send it world-wide.

There is absolutely no relationship with the Catholic church, banks or anyone else. If you people, with your powerful lobby groups, can't fix the problems over there, may I suggest you are wasting your money on them? Don't blame the unions, or the resources boom, blame your own inefficiencies. I think we've all heard enough of farmers' whingeing.

It may take time, but we will stop this, by ongoing international exposure. Perhaps we may be able to follow up wool boycotts with boycotts of Australian meat, and who knows where we can go from there?
I have no problems with devoting my resources to it for as long as it takes.

Nicky