EGAR IN THE NEWS FOR CRUELTY

Frigga_92

26sdrawkcab wrote: »

You don't change overnight from a caring person to someone who allows animals to suffer and die.

John_Rambo wrote: »

People can change massively over a short space of time. I had an injury a few years ago and turned in to a very different person when I went off my pain killers. Doing my best to respect anniehoo's Mod Note on post number 87.

Just highlighting what I actually said.
I'm sure you didn't change overnight.
This was a gradual thing that she allowed to happen. She didn't change overnight from a loving, caring person to someone who allows animals to die in her "care".
She said that the dogs were kept on those premises for 10 days but during those 10 days she visited them (on her bicycle apparently because her van was out of use) multiple times so, if she is to be believed, during those 10 days those dogs became skin and bone, seriously ill and one (that I am aware of) died under her nose. Yet, she claims it was an error in judgment. An error in judgment should never affect the well being of another living thing so drastically. Something like this cannot be classed as an error in judgment when it was clearly going on for a long time.
One of the lines from her statement amazes me "if the conditions were as bad as they make out" - a dog died. She allowed a dog to die in her "care" and the dog looks to be decomposing in the photo so it was there a while.
Her statement is all about winning. She appears gleeful that the fine was so low, that the judge said this and did this and ordered that. Not once did she acknowledge the dead dog or the sick dogs.
She should be paying for their medical care and their additional rehoming costs and then she should close up her business, discontinue her involvement with any type of rescue of animals and leave it to people who are in it for the right reasons.

snoman

Sittingpretty wrote: »

I did however think that the welfare of her animals was paramount which is why I'm so very shocked by this story.

Me too. : (

dharma200

Just reading all the posts on social media of people trying to trace what happened to dogs surrendered to her... It's bloody heartbreaking.....

Raminahobbin

Well, I don't know what's going on, but the recent posts on the FB page are a bit chilling. If it's as bad as they're hinting at (nothing has been stated yet), it would seem a whole can of worms has been opened and we've only seen the tip of the iceberg.

(When everyone else is being secretive, the use of many metaphors is a forgivable offence!)

muddypaws

Raminahobbin wrote: »

Well, I don't know what's going on, but the recent posts on the FB page are a bit chilling. If it's as bad as they're hinting at (nothing has been stated yet), it would seem a whole can of worms has been opened and we've only seen the tip of the iceberg.

(When everyone else is being secretive, the use of many metaphors is a forgivable offence!)

I find that FB page worrying, no name as to who is actually running it, and the language being used is ridiculous. Lots of 'we' and legalise, as if it has some kind of official legitimacy, telling people to contact them with evidence. Unfortunately, to me, this sums up exactly what is wrong with Irish rescue, and why she got away with it for as long as she did, its so divisive and "we're better than you". I'm not defending her in any way whatsoever, but I honestly don't think a Facebook campaign is the way to go on these kind of issues. Its very emotive, I realise that, but the very real danger is that donations and help will dry up for other rescues, and who does that benefit?

DBB

I couldn't agree more. Whilst I have very strong feelings about what Sarah did and what needs to happen next, that facebook page "this is not a with hunt" is turning into exactly that.
Also veiled comments and innuendos about others.
I have serious reservations about the anonymity of those behind the fb page, though I have my suspicions I know who at least one of them is.. I think they need to be absolutely transparent if anyone's going to take them seriously.
Also, this petition.... I'd have thought that they cannot be used to influence due process, no? I can't help but think it's a venting mechanism which can serve little actual use.

doubter

DBB wrote: »

I couldn't agree more. Whilst I have very strong feelings about what Sarah did and what needs to happen next, that facebook page "this is not a with hunt" is turning into exactly that.
Also veiled comments and innuendos about others.
I have serious reservations about the anonymity of those behind the fb page, though I have my suspicions I know who at least one of them is.. I think they need to be absolutely transparent if anyone's going to take them seriously.
Also, this petition.... I'd have thought that they cannot be used to influence due process, no? I can't help but think it's a venting mechanism which can serve little actual use.

I actually know who is behind that page and these people are very serious, and not out to hurt Sarah at all. Whilst the writing is quite emotional, I think a case like this it's hard to keep your emotions under control at all times. I certainly can't and I'm usually quite relaxed. All the page has asked for over and over again is for SG to come forward with the information requested.Let people know the where abouts of the dogs she rehomed, names aren't needed but a recent date stamped picture of the animal involved in their new home would be nice.

And, in all fairness, I for one don't want any animal in her care anymore.
She needs to focus on her child and the pet dogs she has and leave rescue behind.

sambuka41

muddypaws wrote: »

I find that FB page worrying, no name as to who is actually running it, and the language being used is ridiculous. Lots of 'we' and legalise, as if it has some kind of official legitimacy, telling people to contact them with evidence.

I was thinking the exact same as I was reading it yesterday, there were mention of investigators uncovering the truth :rolleyes:

doubter wrote: »

I actually know who is behind that page and these people are very serious, and not out to hurt Sarah at all. Whilst the writing is quite emotional, I think a case like this it's hard to keep your emotions under control at all times. I certainly can't and I'm usually quite relaxed. All the page has asked for over and over again is for SG to come forward with the information requested.Let people know the where abouts of the dogs she rehomed, names aren't needed but a recent date stamped picture of the animal involved in their new home would be nice.

If I were Sarah I wouldn't be engaging with the people from that page either. Of course people are upset and want answers but I think the page is fanning the flames here and upsetting people more than is necessary. It feels like a personal grudge, a case of one-upmanship.

doubter

sambuka41 wrote: »

I was thinking the exact same as I was reading it yesterday, there were mention of investigators uncovering the truth :rolleyes:




If I were Sarah I wouldn't be engaging with the people from that page either. Of course people are upset and want answers but I think the page is fanning the flames here and upsetting people more than is necessary. It feels like a personal grudge, a case of one-upmanship.

It's not.And, the general experience (and my personal one with Sarah) is that she doesn't engage with anyone other than in a abusive fashion if one doesn't agree with her. There's a serious god complex there.If she is ever to step back from rescue, she will only do it if forced as it's her sole source of income.(other than the dole and probably child allowance as she does not work). All she has to do is proof people wrong. But her silence is deafening.

muddypaws

doubter wrote: »

It's not.And, the general experience (and my personal one with Sarah) is that she doesn't engage with anyone other than in a abusive fashion if one doesn't agree with her. There's a serious god complex there.If she is ever to step back from rescue, she will only do it if forced as it's her sole source of income.(other than the dole and probably child allowance as she does not work). All she has to do is proof people wrong. But her silence is deafening.

But two wrongs don't make a right. What you're describing is exactly whats happening on that page.

She has handed some dogs over to another rescue, a rescue who aren't engaging in any of the comments or campaigning, other than to state they have the dogs. Does that not show that, if the animals are the main priority, that is the way to go? I did say a few days ago that it was a vain hope that this would stop the oneupmanship, unfortunately it does look like it was a very vain hope.

sambuka41

doubter wrote: »

All she has to do is proof people wrong. But her silence is deafening.

Actually she doesn't have to do anything, she is free to ignore who ever she likes.

I think if people have any more information about cruelty or neglect then they should be going to the Gardai with it, not some facebook page. This in-fighting is not helpful and in the end Sarah and her situation is only one case. Energy would be better spent on trying to find solutions to help prevent this happening again.

doubter

muddypaws wrote: »

But two wrongs don't make a right. What you're describing is exactly whats happening on that page.

She has handed some dogs over to another rescue, a rescue who aren't engaging in any of the comments or campaigning, other than to state they have the dogs. Does that not show that, if the animals are the main priority, that is the way to go? I did say a few days ago that it was a vain hope that this would stop the oneupmanship, unfortunately it does look like it was a very vain hopoe.

She did indeed, and that's a very good step.But, people feel in the light of whats happening, it's not enough. It is unfortunate that Sarah made so many enemies over the years and that is also what is coming out now.Things she has accused other rescues of have happened at hers. Bullying campaigns she has set up .I agree there is some part that is pay back. But if she ignores it (and she does have that right but it's certainly not helping) it won't go away.
I for one want justice for those dogs and (bar physical violence) will not stop calling out for it.

doubter

see article in todays news paper

muddypaws

doubter wrote: »

She did indeed, and that's a very good step.But, people feel in the light of whats happening, it's not enough. It is unfortunate that Sarah made so many enemies over the years and that is also what is coming out now.Things she has accused other rescues of have happened at hers. Bullying campaigns she has set up .I agree there is some part that is pay back. But if she ignores it (and she does have that right but it's certainly not helping) it won't go away.
I for one want justice for those dogs and (bar physical violence) will not stop calling out for it.

But yet you have no problem defending and being part of this bullying campaign? Can you honestly not see the irony?

Lets step back a minute. I presume the thinking now is that she set up these bullying campaigns to deflect from what she was doing herself? So, how do the public not know that the people involved with this present campaign aren't doing the same thing? Whether that is true or not, there is a very good chance that people will think that, and so not donate to, or help small rescues because of it. So, the campaign gets the answers they want, at the expense of other animals dying.

When people's backs are against the wall and they have nowhere to go, they don't crumble you know, they tend to fight harder.

doubter

muddypaws wrote: »

But yet you have no problem defending and being part of this bullying campaign? Can you honestly not see the irony?

Lets step back a minute. I presume the thinking now is that she set up these bullying campaigns to deflect from what she was doing herself? So, how do the public not know that the people involved with this present campaign aren't doing the same thing? Whether that is true or not, there is a very good chance that people will think that, and so not donate to, or help small rescues because of it. So, the campaign gets the answers they want, at the expense of other animals dying.

When people's backs are against the wall and they have nowhere to go, they don't crumble you know, they tend to fight harder.

that depends if the people are sensible or not.But positives are also posted, don't forget that. Jaffa's journey fore instance-and he's in very good shape as the pictures of only 2 weeks ago prove.It's not a hate campaign.
But I guess peoples views will always be different on what to do and how to do it, and that's fine.I have mine, you have yours.

Frigga_92

I honestly don't think the facebook page is a hate campaign.
I do agree that there should be more transparency about who is running it and their reasons for running it.
I see a lot of emotive posts but I don't see hate. I'm speaking for comments generated by the owners of the page and not comments left by other people, which is out of their control.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

muddypaws

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes they do, whether someone is a rescue or a member of the public, if you take in a stray dog, you have to report it to the dog warden or the gardai. Most councils insist on the animal actually going into the pound to do its statutory 5 days.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Frog Song

What a horrible situation Always heard about the great work EGAR did and donated to a few particular causes, this is such upsetting news. Whatever happened it's dreadfully sad that the animals suffered in a place that should have done everything for them.

The dogs are the victims here yet again. I won't comment on what I think of her personally :mad:

TheSockMonster

Sarah's been convicted and punished in a court. I agree that the punishment wasn't enough but its over in the eyes of the law and she has no obligation to answer anyone's questions or hand over her remaining dogs. I think she probably will have to because of lack of funds though. I was as shocked as anyone and I followed that Facebook page with interest at the beginning, but the stuff that's being posted on it now it just nonsense. "Our resident psychologist", "forensically examining photos", profiling articles etc. Its getting a bit silly, IMHO. I don't know Sarah, except for following her on Facebook and talking to her on the phone a few times but I don't think she's evil as so many people are saying. She clearly loves the dogs or she wouldn't have started a rescue and she adores her son. I don't know what happened with those dogs, we will never know, but I think painting her as an evil sociopath is wrong. Rescue is really hard and its very easy to take on more than you can handle. And people can say "ask for help from other rescues", but I've been there and once the dog is out of the pound the other rescue groups couldn't care less about what's going on with you unless they want you to take more dogs. I've had rescue dogs get sick like that and it was a nightmare and nobody was willing to help. Maybe she learned from what happened and is now running a great rescue? We don't know, most of what's being posted on Facebook is speculation and personal opinion. Its clear that she's made a lot of enemies over the years though so there does seem to be some sort of vendetta here. She has treated people badly and now they want payback. I think its a really sad situation and a lot of bull breed dogs are going to die because of this.

I also noted with interest that the new article that came out this morning had no mention of a dead dog or skulls, even though the reporter was in the court room. Strange. I have to assume that it wasn't brought up in court or it would have got a mention.

The more that comes out about this the more sceptical I'm getting about the story that came out. I'm not supporting her by any means but I am starting to wonder what's really going on here.

snoman

muddypaws wrote: »

I find that FB page worrying, no name as to who is actually running it, and the language being used is ridiculous. Lots of 'we' and legalise, as if it has some kind of official legitimacy, telling people to contact them with evidence. Unfortunately, to me, this sums up exactly what is wrong with Irish rescue, and why she got away with it for as long as she did, its so divisive and "we're better than you". I'm not defending her in any way whatsoever, but I honestly don't think a Facebook campaign is the way to go on these kind of issues. Its very emotive, I realise that, but the very real danger is that donations and help will dry up for other rescues, and who does that benefit?

I was reading a lot of the comments on that FB page beneath the posts, it appears that some 'positive' comments appear to have been deleted. Surely you only cheapen the validity of your argument if you do this.

The name of the person who has started the page was published in the Examiner article that I read online.

I am all for the full facts coming out but surely open discussion and the fresh air of public scruitny is the way to get this dealt with properly, and certainly the only way that things are going to change.

It feels as if a lot of other rescues had an inkling or more of what was up at the good ship EGAR and let it go, for whatever reason, for a long, long time. So maybe deflection is a good a way of assuaging guilt?

doubter

TheSockMonster wrote: »

Sarah's been convicted and punished in a court. I agree that the punishment wasn't enough but its over in the eyes of the law and she has no obligation to answer anyone's questions or hand over her remaining dogs. I think she probably will have to because of lack of funds though. I was as shocked as anyone and I followed that Facebook page with interest at the beginning, but the stuff that's being posted on it now it just nonsense. "Our resident psychologist", "forensically examining photos", profiling articles etc. Its getting a bit silly, IMHO. I don't know Sarah, except for following her on Facebook and talking to her on the phone a few times but I don't think she's evil as so many people are saying. She clearly loves the dogs or she wouldn't have started a rescue and she adores her son. I don't know what happened with those dogs, we will never know, but I think painting her as an evil sociopath is wrong. Rescue is really hard and its very easy to take on more than you can handle. And people can say "ask for help from other rescues", but I've been there and once the dog is out of the pound the other rescue groups couldn't care less about what's going on with you unless they want you to take more dogs. I've had rescue dogs get sick like that and it was a nightmare and nobody was willing to help. Maybe she learned from what happened and is now running a great rescue? We don't know, most of what's being posted on Facebook is speculation and personal opinion. Its clear that she's made a lot of enemies over the years though so there does seem to be some sort of vendetta here. She has treated people badly and now they want payback. I think its a really sad situation and a lot of bull breed dogs are going to die because of this.

I also noted with interest that the new article that came out this morning had no mention of a dead dog or skulls, even though the reporter was in the court room. Strange. I have to assume that it wasn't brought up in court or it would have got a mention.

The more that comes out about this the more sceptical I'm getting about the story that came out. I'm not supporting her by any means but I am starting to wonder what's really going on here.

I noted those missing too. I would presume that it was difficult to factually prove these dogs belonging to her in a court of law.One can only be charged with something that can be proven.After all, she only rented the premises.But as i said before, there are lies told by her in that article that clearly stand out.She was convicted on cruelty/neglect on 8 cases.8 dogs seized.that was what was brought up against her as it could be proven without doubt.

I said before that i know who's behind the page, and some of them have a funny way of writing, so don't take things like ' the residence psychologist to serious.It's an emotional subject and sometimes keeping things a bit lighter might not be a bad thing. Just my thoughts on that. I by the way have made positive comments as well, and they are still there.

boomerang

Without expressing an opinion on the facebook page either way, that person genuinely is a psychologist, with a doctorate.

And again without coming down either side of the rights or wrongs of that page, were it me, I wouldn't be divulging my name, either. In fact I'm even nervous of posting in this thread, for fear I should come to EGAR's attention.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

snoman

doubter wrote: »

I noted those missing too. I would presume that it was difficult to factually prove these dogs belonging to her in a court of law.One can only be charged with something that can be proven.After all, she only rented the premises.But as i said before, there are lies told by her in that article that clearly stand out.She was convicted on cruelty/neglect on 8 cases.8 dogs seized.that was what was brought up against her as it could be proven without doubt.

I said before that i know who's behind the page, and some of them have a funny way of writing, so don't take things like ' the residence psychologist to serious.It's an emotional subject and sometimes keeping things a bit lighter might not be a bad thing. Just my thoughts on that. I by the way have made positive comments as well, and they are still there.

Unfortunately because there is now so much speculation floating around that if a proper, reputable newspaper doesn't mention something as serious as the bodies of dead dogs it can only make me question a lot of other 'facts' being thrown about.

I also know someone else who had a 'funny way of writing' and her initials are SG!

I reiterate, she has no business running a rescue but I am all for balance and just because people are emotional does not give them the right to jiggle with the balance between truth and untruth. Let's face it, the truth is bad enough.

muddypaws

I see the examiner article has disappeared off line. It wasn't very accurate, but I wonder why it has been taken down?

snoman

Fred Swanson wrote: »

What page is this? I must have missed it.

If you go to Facebook and search EGAR.

snoman

muddypaws wrote: »

I see the examiner article has disappeared off line. It wasn't very accurate, but I wonder why it has been taken down?

I reckon that it was sent a 'press release' by the person who started the FB page and when all the florid and and unsubstantiated language was removed all that remained was dodgy facts and the name of the FB author who would, I imagine, prefer to remain anonymous - understandably.

doubter

snoman wrote: »

I reckon that it was sent a 'press release' by the person who started the FB page and when all the florid and and unsubstantiated language was removed all that remained was dodgy facts and the name of the FB author.

I only have a foto print of that news paper article and I can't see the author..so who would that be?