EGAR IN THE NEWS FOR CRUELTY

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

doubter

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

oh THATY one? god thats just nastiness. I'm not talking about that page.
I'm talking about this one

https://www.facebook.com/pages/EGAR-Must-never-have-another-animal-in-their-care/479395202197777?sk=timeline

snoman

Fred Swanson wrote: »

The one with the "rejected" stamp on it?

'EGAR must never have another animal in their care'

Sorry too inept to.cut and post on my phone!!

snoman

doubter wrote: »

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

The one I am talking about was online and I didn't take the author's name as I didn't know it'd be deleted.

Sittingpretty

boomerang wrote: »

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.

May I ask why you'd fear coming to EGAR's attention?


I would really REALLY love to know the actual real truth on this whole horrible affair

muddypaws

snoman wrote: »

The one I am talking about was online and I didn't take the author's name as I didn't know it'd be deleted.

I see your edit, I have clicked on links to the examiner.com article and its coming up as not there, could you please put a link up, it must be a different on.

Thanks

snoman

snoman wrote: »

The one I am talking about was online and I didn't take the author's name as I didn't know it'd be deleted.

I got it wrong, the article I was looking at was on examiner.com and has not been deleted.

doubter

snoman wrote: »

The one I am talking about was online and I didn't take the author's name as I didn't know it'd be deleted.

it was replaced with a follow up

http://connachttribune.ie/gspca-calls-for-more-inspections-at-animal-facilities/

snoman

muddypaws wrote: »

I see your edit, I have clicked on links to the examiner.com article and its coming up as not there, could you please put a link up, it must be a different on.

Thanks

http://www.examiner.com/article/ireland-woman-fined-250-for-animal-abuse-now-wants-dogs-back?cid=rss

TheSockMonster

Boomerang, if that psychologist is legit and is accredited with the Psychological Society of Ireland then they should be very careful. Profiling a facebook article and labelling someone a narcissist could be seen as a breach of ethics. No psychologist should be saying anything of the sort without conducting a full psychological assessment on the person in question.

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.

Doubter, there was no need to say the dogs belonged to her. All they had to say was that there were dead dogs found on the property and considering that the land didn't even belong to her no one could be accused of saying that the dogs did. Although the GSPCA had no problem in saying just that on their Facebook page. Anyone who knows about bull breed stigma knows that newspapers love to sell papers. And sensationalist stories and death are great for selling newspapers. So why the dead dogs weren't mentioned in court and/or in the papers is beyond me. I'm not saying that there was no dead dog. The pictures are quite clear, showing a decomposed carcass of what looks to be a dog wearing a collar in surroundings that fit with the other photos. But I very curious to know about the discrepancies.

I understand that she pled guilty and I'm not defending her. I don't think she should get away so lightly. I work in healthcare and if I had been convicted of abuse of a vulnerable person I would never expect to work, voluntarily or paid, in the sector ever again. And it should be the same for her. But like I said, I don't think its right to label her as evil.

Going back to healthcare, it reminds me of a case that was in the news a few months ago of a carer in the intellectual disability sector who was left with 8 or 9 people to mind on his own, when all these people should have had one carer each. One of his clients was shouting and winding the others up. The carer couldn't cope so taped the clients mouth shut to try to quieten him and calm the other clients. Obviously this was awful and shouldn't have happened but this man was reacting to events around him. He wasn't a psychopath trying to inflict pain on his clients.

It reminds me of Sarah Gunther because I do think that she loves the animals and made a mistake. Maybe I'm the one who's mistaken, I wasn't there but I feel that what's going on now is wrong. I don't know who's behind the page but IMO getting a psychologist to profile articles is ridiculous and unethical, no matter how its worded.

doubter

TheSockMonster wrote: »

Going back to healthcare, it reminds me of a case that was in the news a few months ago of a carer in the intellectual disability sector who was left with 8 or 9 people to mind on his own, when all these people should have had one carer each. One of his clients was shouting and winding the others up. The carer couldn't cope so taped the clients mouth shut to try to quieten him and calm the other clients. Obviously this was awful and shouldn't have happened but this man was reacting to events around him. He wasn't a psychopath trying to inflict pain on his clients.

It reminds me of Sarah Gunther because I do think that she loves the animals and made a mistake. Maybe I'm the one who's mistaken, I wasn't there but I feel that what's going on now is wrong. I don't know who's behind the page but IMO getting a psychologist to profile articles is ridiculous and unethical, no matter how its worded.

Only part quoting this as i am not in disagreement with your assessment on newspapers.
Tell me though, what were the consequences for the carer?

tk123

doubter wrote: »

it was replaced with a follow up

http://connachttribune.ie/gspca-calls-for-more-inspections-at-animal-facilities/

Completely OT but what a fantastic name that warden has!

TheSockMonster

doubter wrote: »

Only part quoting this as i am not in disagreement with your assessment on newspapers.
Tell me though, what were the consequences for the carer?

He got probation and stayed on the nurses register. I actually wasn't sure so had to look it up and I was shocked when I read it.

doubter

TheSockMonster wrote: »

He got probation and stayed on the nurses register. I actually wasn't sure so had to look it up and I was shocked when I read it.

Christ. what chances have the animals than if this is allowed to happen to people?

Calhoun

TheSockMonster wrote: »

Boomerang, if that psychologist is legit and is accredited with the Psychological Society of Ireland then they should be very careful. Profiling a facebook article and labelling someone a narcissist could be seen as a breach of ethics. No psychologist should be saying anything of the sort without conducting a full psychological assessment on the person in question.



Doubter, there was no need to say the dogs belonged to her. All they had to say was that there were dead dogs found on the property and considering that the land didn't even belong to her no one could be accused of saying that the dogs did. Although the GSPCA had no problem in saying just that on their Facebook page. Anyone who knows about bull breed stigma knows that newspapers love to sell papers. And sensationalist stories and death are great for selling newspapers. So why the dead dogs weren't mentioned in court and/or in the papers is beyond me. I'm not saying that there was no dead dog. The pictures are quite clear, showing a decomposed carcass of what looks to be a dog wearing a collar in surroundings that fit with the other photos. But I very curious to know about the discrepancies.

I understand that she pled guilty and I'm not defending her. I don't think she should get away so lightly. I work in healthcare and if I had been convicted of abuse of a vulnerable person I would never expect to work, voluntarily or paid, in the sector ever again. And it should be the same for her. But like I said, I don't think its right to label her as evil.

Going back to healthcare, it reminds me of a case that was in the news a few months ago of a carer in the intellectual disability sector who was left with 8 or 9 people to mind on his own, when all these people should have had one carer each. One of his clients was shouting and winding the others up. The carer couldn't cope so taped the clients mouth shut to try to quieten him and calm the other clients. Obviously this was awful and shouldn't have happened but this man was reacting to events around him. He wasn't a psychopath trying to inflict pain on his clients.

It reminds me of Sarah Gunther because I do think that she loves the animals and made a mistake. Maybe I'm the one who's mistaken, I wasn't there but I feel that what's going on now is wrong. I don't know who's behind the page but IMO getting a psychologist to profile articles is ridiculous and unethical, no matter how its worded.

Part in bold, actually you are defending her. Your looking for an excuse to explain a situation that shouldnt have happened.

Of course she is not evil but considering that she made this mistake more than once and the bile coming from her how many mistakes is she allowed to make.

She lived by the sword by courting social media and she will invariably die by the sword in the same way.

I hate this crap that just because there may have been some assumed pressure its suddenly ok to act in the manner a person acted.

muddypaws

TheSockMonster wrote: »

He got probation and stayed on the nurses register. I actually wasn't sure so had to look it up and I was shocked when I read it.

I wonder what happened to the care provider, whether state or private, that left him on his own to cope with those people?

DBB

Sittingpretty wrote: »

May I ask why you'd fear coming to EGAR's attention?


I would really REALLY love to know the actual real truth on this whole horrible affair

I can completely understand why Boomerang would prefer to stay silent. There are many people, myself included, who got very badly burned by Sarah for daring to suggest that things were less than perfect with EGAR... And I'm not just talking that things were not right just in the recent past. I got burned for sticking my head over the parapet eleven whole years ago.
I actually had it all typed out here, my story of what she did to me over several years afterwards, but on second thoughts, though I didn't take it lying down then, I don't need a repeat performance from her, so I'll hold my counsel too.
I think it's likely most others in my shoes feel the same way.

TheSockMonster

Calhoun wrote: »

Part in bold, actually you are defending her. Your looking for an excuse to explain a situation that shouldnt have happened.

Of course she is not evil but considering that she made this mistake more than once and the bile coming from her how many mistakes is she allowed to make.

She lived by the sword by courting social media and she will invariably die by the sword in the same way.

I hate this crap that just because there may have been some assumed pressure its suddenly ok to act in the manner a person acted.

Calhoun, please do not put words in my mouth. I am not defending her and have said so in both of my posts. I have also said that her punishment wasn't enough and that she shouldn't work with animals again. There is absolutely no proof that she did this more than once and I don't deal in hearsay, speculation and rumours. If you want to that's fine, but please don't drag me into it. My point was that not everything is black and white and sometimes good people do bad things and that it's wrong to have a hate filled Facebook page where people can condemn her as a sociopath when none of us bar Sarah Gunther herself knows what happened in her rescue.

Sittingpretty

DBB wrote: »

I can completely understand why Boomerang would prefer to stay silent. There are many people, myself included, who got very badly burned by Sarah for daring to suggest that things were less than perfect with EGAR... And I'm not just talking that things were not right just in the recent past. I got burned for sticking my head over the parapet eleven whole years ago.
I actually had it all typed out here, my story of what she did to me over several years afterwards, but on second thoughts, though I didn't take it lying down then, I don't need a repeat performance from her, so I'll hold my counsel too.
I think it's likely most others in my shoes feel the same way.

I totally understand that, completely.

I suppose for me my difficulty is, this is the absolute first I ever heard of this. I was totally trusting of Sarah, also befriended her on fb, although don't have very much contact there.

Despite having thought that she seemed to spend a LOT of time on fb, and a lot of that time being negative and vocal about other rescues, I suppose I genuinely thought she was beyond reproach and that ALL animals in her care were super well looked after.

So you can understand my jaw hitting the floor when this came to light.

Of course I completely understand both yours, BOOMERANG's and anyone else's reticence when it comes to speaking about this.

I brought a dog to Sarah some years ago when I was told by another rescue to bring her to the pound. I understand that she found a great home as I saw pics of her on fb.

I suppose I'm just finding it very hard to reconcile what I previously thought of Sarah and EGAR with what has come to light over the past few days.

TheSockMonster

muddypaws wrote: »

I wonder what happened to the care provider, whether state or private, that left him on his own to cope with those people?

It was a HSE hospital and I don't think anything happened except a lecture from the judge about working conditions.

muddypaws

TheSockMonster wrote: »

It was a HSE hospital and I don't think anything happened except a lecture from the judge about working conditions.

That is the real issue, bet they weren't changed.

seamus

Calhoun wrote: »

Part in bold, actually you are defending her. Your looking for an excuse to explain a situation that shouldnt have happened.

Excuses and explanations are not the same thing.

An explanation is just an understanding of the course of events which led to an incident occurring.

An excuse is the reason why the explanation is morally justifiable.

It's a subtle difference, but something like this or the HSE case mentioned, can have a perfectly reasonable and rational explanation. But the existence of a reasonable explanation doesn't automatically mean it's excusable.

Calhoun

TheSockMonster wrote: »

Calhoun, please do not put words in my mouth. I am not defending her and have said so in both of my posts. I have also said that her punishment wasn't enough and that she shouldn't work with animals again. There is absolutely no proof that she did this more than once and I don't deal in hearsay, speculation and rumours. If you want to that's fine, but please don't drag me into it. My point was that not everything is black and white and sometimes good people do bad things and that it's wrong to have a hate filled Facebook page where people can condemn her as a sociopath when none of us bar Sarah Gunther herself knows what happened in her rescue.

I am not putting words in your mouth the tone and text of your post implied that you were defending here, in one breath you are saying punish here in the other you are effectively explaining it away.

I dont agree with the attacks on her either but i think this is the chickens coming home to roost in her case. Her reputation is in tatters and people are going for blood, in a similar way to how she has done so in the past.

I wasnt sure if there were other cases i was just going by what was on thread which implied this was an ongoing issue for some time.

doubter

[QUOTE=Calhoun;91317475
I dont agree with the attacks on her either but i think this is the chickens coming home to roost in her case. Her reputation is in tatters and people are going for blood, in a similar way to how she has done so in the past.

[/QUOTE]

This will be the case for some of them, possibly even as many as 75%.
And it's understandable.
I used to run a large transport group, taking dogs from pounds and bringing them to rescue's all over the country. I think we had a request to find a staffie a safe place, and were told that EGAR might have space. She was contacted, but when she heard we were working with another 2 rescue's she didn't get along with, she bluntly refused. And kept stirring up trouble on the page, attacking others and making threats.
I don't recall if we managed to get the staffie to safety, but the simple fact of her saying: oh, if you work with such and such, i won't help the dog' staid with me fore ever.That is not a rescue mentality and it still shocks me to date.

Calhoun

seamus wrote: »

Excuses and explanations are not the same thing.

An explanation is just an understanding of the course of events which led to an incident occurring.

An excuse is the reason why the explanation is morally justifiable.

It's a subtle difference, but something like this or the HSE case mentioned, can have a perfectly reasonable and rational explanation. But the existence of a reasonable explanation doesn't automatically mean it's excusable.

Agreed but i suppose in this case the explanation like everything in this thread is unfounded and speculation. Allot of this shouldnt be happening but from what i read it seems she brought allot of this flak her own way.

When you live your life off the donations of the general public, when something like this happens i think an explanation from the parties involved are required and not just a lapse in judgement with no remorse.

snoman

DBB wrote: »

I can completely understand why Boomerang would prefer to stay silent. There are many people, myself included, who got very badly burned by Sarah for daring to suggest that things were less than perfect with EGAR... And I'm not just talking that things were not right just in the recent past. I got burned for sticking my head over the parapet eleven whole years ago.
I actually had it all typed out here, my story of what she did to me over several years afterwards, but on second thoughts, though I didn't take it lying down then, I don't need a repeat performance from her, so I'll hold my counsel too.
I think it's likely most others in my shoes feel the same way.

DBB that sounds really awful and I'd understand why you and Boomerang wouldn't want a round 2.

DBB

snoman wrote: »

DBB that sounds really awful and I'd understand why you and Boomerang wouldn't want a round 2.

Thanks snoman, I don't want to start a pity party or anything, and I think the hassle she put me through was fairly mild, at least in comparison to some of the stuff that's coming out in the wash now!

gozunda

snoman wrote: »

http://www.examiner.com/article/ireland-woman-fined-250-for-animal-abuse-now-wants-dogs-back?cid=rss

The team found a rundown house with two dilapidated sheds that housed the EGAR dogs. Trash was piled everywhere on the property. When they entered the sheds they found dogs that were so emaciated, some had to be carried out by the team. The dogs feeding and watering bowls were embedded in layers of dirt, feces, and trash, and every one of bowls were empty. There were dogs that had been forced to live alongside the skeletal remains of other dogs that had died long ago. The food the team did find on the property was in rusty cans and covered with maggots.

Absolutely Nothing excuses keeping animals in these conditions.

The article also mentions that the team was able to recover 8 live dogs from EGAR, and the skeletal remains of 3 more dogs.

Some posts here have questioned why the skeletal remains weren't mentioned in the report of the court case.

In cases of this type the case against the accused is presented for only those individual cases of Cruely that are most likley to succeed in a prosecution. I have read similar cases of dozens of animals dead and dying but again only those individual examples likley to succeed in a prosecution were listed.

So while yes there were evidently skeletal remains found and may have been mentioned in the overall GSPCA report they may not have been listed by the prosecution.

snoman

gozunda wrote: »

Absolutely Nothing excuses keeping animals in these conditions.

The article also mentions that the team was able to recover 8 live dogs from EGAR, and the skeletal remains of 3 more dogs.

Some posts here have questioned why the skeletal remains weren't mentioned in the report of the court case.

In cases of this type the case against the accused is presented for only those individual cases of Cruely that are most likley to succeed in a prosecution. I have read similar cases of dozens of animals dead and dying but again only those individual examples likley to succeed in a prosecution were listed.

So while yes there were evidently skeletal remains found and may have been mentioned in the overall GSPCA report they may not have been listed by the prosecution.

As a matter of interest is there access to the court documents?

Frigga_92

gozunda wrote: »

Absolutely Nothing excuses keeping animals in these conditions.

The article also mentions that the team was able to recover 8 live dogs from EGAR, and the skeletal remains of 3 more dogs.

Some posts here have questioned why the skeletal remains weren't mentioned in the report of the court case.

In cases of this type the case against the accused is presented for only those individual cases of Cruely that are most likley to succeed in a prosecution. I have read similar cases of dozens of animals dead and dying but again only those individual examples likley to succeed in a prosecution were listed.

So while yes there were evidently skeletal remains found and may have been mentioned in the overall GSPCA report they may not have been listed by the prosecution.

Remains of 3 dogs??? That is shocking.

In relation to the latter part of your post, it may operate similar to a driving offence prosecution. Dangerous driving often gets reduced to careless driving in order to prosecute successfully, as the alternative sometimes leads to no prosecution at all. The severity of the prosecution is decided on by the gardai who would have experience in how a case might be treated based on precedent.