Col Rouge
Apologies just returned from the bush

I think you have been around the traps and that’s precisely what’s required.

Most people think animal’s welfare is a small issue but behind the scene it’s a multi trillion dollars industry where corruption flows like wine.


I agree with a much small Government. IMO if we encourage the communities to jump their local councillors and appoint a board instead of being bullied it would be a good place to start. Perhaps then people will finally understand they do have the power to make changes. From there it might give them to confidence to dump the state Governments and demand real people to represent their concerns in federal government. With the world wide recession it might be a good place to start by encouraging people not to waste funds by giving two Governments our public purse to splurge on parties trips…

If you are going to be around this thread I would like to share and ask thoughts on some events that have taken place since we launched a small group called PALE.
As your independent and looking at things with a broader view it might give me the opportunity to explain some of our concerns..

We are an independent small group of people grass roots people from mixed back grounds each with a love of animals a sense of fair play and deep concerns about the political correctness of some of the head animal’s representatives.
It would be good to kick a few facts about and ask you for you opinions if you had any

Hello Nicky

I found myself thinking of you on Christmas day. (Invited the new neighbours the Buddhist monks they are building a monastery slowly)

There is something nice about sitting on Christmas day surrounded by cows and their calves with only people who see them as fellow living creatures and hold respect for them.

I did think of you and wished for a moment you could be there to join in the feeling of utter peace and good will if only for a few hours.

To your comments.

*And I imagine Animals Australia ….

Umm, well perhaps others require knowing what guidelines are to be followed- don’t you think? Then we would all know what to, and not to send.



*"AQIS is only enforcing importing rules, not our rules,"*
Australia and AQIS according to Anne do not and have not exported dogs to Asia.

*That said, it somewhat escapes me why he is the person commenting on behalf of the national body.*

Yes it’s interesting but perhaps we could once again point out he also was head of Handle with Care.

Do you not find it strange that peak animal welfare heads agreed to this considering the years and years of complaining about the man.?

Thanks, PALE, I had a lovely peaceful Christmas (that was after almost every appliance in the house broke down and had to be replaced).

I have always said that I don't know how Wirthless became the spokesperson for Handle with Care, and I don't know what Animals Australia's policies are about receiving/using/disseminating information. I would think they would be very careful about whom they released a lot of information to, however - as you said, corruption is manifest particularly when government agencies are involved.

I asked AMSA which were the live export ships that were prohibited from loading a couple of months ago over failing to meet pollution requirements - and it has to be a formal FOI request and you have to pay for the information. That sort of information should be released in the public interest. But I'll send them the money and see what comes back.

Perhaps the exportation of dogs does not come under the sections of the people with whom you discussed it; who knows?

Nicky

Nicky

If you’re attuned to something it’s quite possible it can affect your electrical goods in your household, but that’s a whole different subject so I won’t go there.

*I have always said that I don't know how Wirthless *

What we find concerning, is everybody tagged him Dr Wirthless,( well before our time- )only then to turn around and appoint him head of Handle with Care WSPA in Australia ..
We can’t move on until we fully understand what’s gone on in the past.

I want to know why RSPCA National and Animals Australia ignored many invitations of meetings with Islamic leaders working under our MOU for Animal Welfare to phase out live exports.

Well may you say look PALE its personality clash.

No it’s more than that- trust me. Hugh has never met with any of our lawyers or pale heads. Glenys either. Yet pale was rejected as members of both WSPA and AA.


You don’t just thumb your noses at half a dozen lawyers with abattoirs background trade etc that are not charging you if your serious about phasing out live to replace with chilled.


Both Hugh and Glenys have sat on the same boards for YEARS. In all those years little has been achieved.


. Time for a sweep with a new broom imo. Perhaps Mark P and Lyn, although they are at times a little naïve as well. Someone like Col would be good. (Seriously uninvolved and not naïve.)

These are the same two that ignored invitations by us to attend meetings with Islamic contacts - yet sought meetings in our absence we were informed.

Ask yourself what it was they didn’t want to discuss in front of lawyers perhaps.’


*Perhaps the exportation of dogs ..*

Anne was the Ministers advisor. Sent straight from AQIS. Of course she would know.

Question IS did she lie?- *and what of her statement that Dr Wirthless together with UK RSPCA President had met with the then Minister of Ag two days prior and pledged their ongoing support for live exports.

PALE, we have been down this road SO OFTEN. The only way you are going to get the answers to your questions - and it will not happen in these forums - is to ASK THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES. I don't know the answers, nor, I suggest, does anyone else here. And what would be the possible benefit of having someone "uninvolved" leading animal welfare (no disrespect to you, Col!)?

Nor, I believe, are Mark Pearson or Lyn White "naive". They are experienced and successful campaigners who have led, or been instrumental in extraordinary achievements. You shouldn't try to diminish that (or them).

As for Hugh Wirth - again, you will only get your answers from those concerned, as is the case with PALE's rejection by WSPA and AA. Move on!

Nicky

*And what would be the possible benefit of having someone "uninvolved" leading animal welfare (no disrespect to you, Col!)?*

Nicky

Do not be so blind.

Mark and Lyn (as you know) are two of my personal chosen replacements for the others.

However looking at the big scale Mark IS naive imop as well as Lyn at times.

I 'DO' know haven spoken to both several times and being stunned to
discover neither were aware of AWB. (Thats just one example.)

The meat industry is very corrupt ( not to mention Governments) and without people with first hand knowledge your working with one hind tied behind your back.

(Now thats not having a go at them either.)

60 Minutes were also unaware . Mind you I would have thought Glenyse having worked with Andrew for years etc prior would have known.

Re Lyn Being an x cop doesnt suddendly give you a deep understanding of the reach of connections in a very corrupt world.

*As for Hugh Wirth - again,* ...


Wong again in this case . I post here comments in order to encourage people like yourself to think for themselves.

You have always denied contact with PETA AA etc but you get mighty upset if anybody points out any problems.

Well let me tell you there are problems- big ones.

As for WSPA membership I remind you the application was to have a rejection in writing from BOTH for the future record.

Regecting a new group with five or six lawyers on board with knowledge in the meat trade is mighty interesting.

After all what was their crime Nicky? That they worked for fREE to help Animals?? Think about it.


Or was it the fact the lawyers had the nouce to approach the Muslim Leaders to form a MOU to phaze out live and replace it with chilled?








Having someone like Col involved is vital Nicky.

Simple as that.