The Brooke animal hospital causes suffering to animals

[Mithras]

Personally I think that Brooke have given as detailed a response as they should have to. If someone isn't satisfied with their explanation - then they should maybe get off their jacksies and raise some money to pay for an external investigation to take place? That would surely be a good step for animal welfare rather than sitting moaning about it on here. Does make me mad when people go on about how much they care for animal welfare and how this and that charity are useless - but what DO these people actually do about it other than moan?!.

I don't want to make an issue of this, but I donate to another equine welfare charity in Egypt.

I see no reason whatsoever why a large, well funded organisation such as the Brooke should not have access to logged cases which it deals with. I would have thought it a very basic and obvious system to have in place.

As for witnessing some wrong doing - what wrong doing was there in relation to the horse?!! I'm still baffled?! Flies, in Egypt, around an animal?! Burst stitches - on a large animal which is coming around from sedation?! A vet sitting at a desk who commented that the horse should recover?!! None of those indicate negligence to be honest - the only way anybody would be able to know if there was negligence is to have another qualified vet examine the body and the clinical notes relating to that horse.

One would have thought these would have been available to the Brooke by now, and a more detailed explanation forthcoming.

 

[cronkmooar]

OK, so after about 3 days I have finally got to the end of the thread - and to be honest I have no idea if the OP is just trying to drum up some business for the other charity or whether there really is a genuine concerns about this particular Brooke hospital.

I dont donate to the Brooke - apart from buying a wrist band at HOYS each year - so I am not an interested party in respect of where my donations are going - and I do accept that some countries do not do things as I personally would expect them to be done (I wont use "we" just in case there is another ding dong about including people in statements without their permission!)

However, there is one thing that has been said that is just not sitting right with me if it is indeed true:-

The OP has stated on more than one occassion that the horse was lying down with ruptured stitches and was loosing a lot of blood, and whilst the horse was in this state the vet was sat at a desk/talking (can't be arsed looking back to see exactly what it was so going from memory and its a long thread!)

This concerns me. I don't know any vet that would leave an animal like this.

The Brooke should be ensuring that a certain standard of care is maintained and if their vets (the one in question is stated by them to be very experienced) think this is acceptable then I think some additional training may be in order.

If donations are collected from a country where this would not be acceptable it is only natural to assume that the same level of care will be provided to any animal treated by the charity that you have donated to - no matter which country this is carried out in.

As I said, I do not dontate to the Brooke, but this thread would make me think twice about buying anything off their stand at HOYS again.

ETA I am also extremely surprised that they do not have an x-ray machine - even the smallest practice has a portable - and I can think of a number of organisations that could have been approached to donate an old one, but IF this charity has the amount of money it is supposed to (I think 14Mill was mentioned) whats the biggy in buying one?

 

[AMH]

In response to your earlier post:

I would not say the OP is suggesting corruption, but rather delivery of a service in a non-satisfactory way - the public blurb of the Charities Regulator does not say that they will ONLY investigate corruption/financial irregularities but in essence that is all that they will investigate. Therefore concerns such as the OP's, unless they are related to corruption, will go unchecked in the charities sector, unless the charity itself is prepared to do something. The CR simply does not have powers to investigate public queries about delivery of a service by a charity.

Corruption would of course be difficult to deduce from this one incident, but that is not what the OP is alleging. And of course any deduction of liability is well nigh impossible to judge until all the evidence is weighed up and some kind of hearing held. That does not however imply that such evidence should never reach public ears, particularly when there is never going to be an appropriate forum to hold such a hearing.

The OP is quoted earlier as saying that the organisation is 'corrupt to the core'. I appreciate that this could be seen as a side-track, but corruption is absolutely what the OP is alleging, because that's the word she used.

 

[rhino]

One would have thought these would have been available to the Brooke by now, and a more detailed explanation forthcoming.

Mithras, OP didn't report this until 2 weeks after the horse's death, so there is no way the body could be examined or any post mortem done .

 

[Moomin1]

I don't want to make an issue of this, but I donate to another equine welfare charity in Egypt.

I see no reason whatsoever why a large, well funded organisation such as the Brooke should not have access to logged cases which it deals with. I would have thought it a very basic and obvious system to have in place.



One would have thought these would have been available to the Brooke by now, and a more detailed explanation forthcoming.

They will be available to Brooke - but why should they place them for all to see on a public forum?! It is NOT for any Tom Dick or Harry to review vet notes and make an expert opinion on them.

The way these things work is that whoever is concerned usually pays for their own expert witness to review the evidence (a vet) and they will decide if there is a case to answer. So - all of those people who do not believe Brooke - why don't you do that?

As for the burst stitches - OP saw those on her second visit - it was not left between the first and second visit with burst stitches.

 

[touchstone]

In response to your earlier post:

I would not say the OP is suggesting corruption, but rather delivery of a service in a non-satisfactory way - the public blurb of the Charities Regulator does not say that they will ONLY investigate corruption/financial irregularities but in essence that is all that they will investigate. Therefore concerns such as the OP's, unless they are related to corruption, will go unchecked in the charities sector, unless the charity itself is prepared to do something. The CR simply does not have powers to investigate public queries about delivery of a service by a charity.

Corruption would of course be difficult to deduce from this one incident, but that is not what the OP is alleging. And of course any deduction of liability is well nigh impossible to judge until all the evidence is weighed up and some kind of hearing held. That does not however imply that such evidence should never reach public ears, particularly when there is never going to be an appropriate forum to hold such a hearing.

I'd disagree that the OP isn't alleging corruption to quote:- "This Charity is corrupt to the core, and the injured horse was neglected and left to die in pain and agony"

Anyway, this thread seems to be going in circles, so I'm dropping out now, but still can't see how the Brooke are supposed to have been negligent in any way, shape or form. Perhaps I'm just stupid I will however continue to support the Brooke and the animals that so desperately need help.

 

[Mithras]

Mithras, OP didn't report this until 2 weeks after the horse's death, so there is no way the body could be examined or any post mortem done .

That is why the charity should have a reasonably detailed record of its cases. I'm not suggesting a post-mortem, simply some basic logging in information that can easily be shared between its staff on the ground and its HQ and main fundraising arm. I am honestly shocked that such a basic system is not in place.

I find it quite obvious that the OP is not necessarily the most foresighted narrator (in terms of judging what goes down well to the HHO "jury") and occasionally is quite emotive. I don't get the impression she is out to promote another charity (and even if she were, if she genuinely thought it was in the interests of equine welfare, this would not be morally wrong). I also get the impression that any emotive comments are due to her genuine shock and dismay at what she witnessed.

I used to donate to the Brooke. I now donate to another equine charity in Egypt. I am not going to go into why I have made this choice. I think the Brooke is a great organisation, certainly in the past, the aims it was set up for are very laudable.

I was not impressed by the general and condescending latest statement by the Brooke one little bit. It was peppered by phrases such as "it is likely that" and "we believe that". The complainant was referred to as "the lady" and I thought slightly belittled. However there are some of us who see perhaps all too readily through this sort of pr blurb, and there was nothing of substance in the latest response. As I said, I or indeed anyone, who had no knowledge of the individual case, could have written it.

I cannot see why people think its unreasonable, bearing in mind charities are expected to be both open and accountable, to actually know what work they are carrying out on the ground when specifically questioned about it - the Brooke is quite a large charity but still relatively manageable compared to some.

 

[Goldenstar]

To believe that a charity is above question and infallible to corruption is plain stupid. And I am quite happy to have categorised myself as that for years until someone made me 'aware' that 80% of all donations were going to administration fees. Large reputable charities too.
The OP brought awareness to a situation that she experienced - was she wrong to do that?
The culture on this forum is damned if you do, damned if you don't. If the OP had mentioned that she witnessed this years ago, undoubtedly the immediate reaction would have been outrage that she did not make people 'aware’ of this.
Awareness brings attention, it makes people think, it can force an investigation, it can right wrongs, it can drive improvement.
In this the OP IMO was correct to document her findings.
And yes I still hold to the fact that a lot of the responses were completely unconstructive, unhelpful, argumentative and served no purpose in terms of the subject matter which was in its essence a case of one animal suffering.

But then this is HHO so I guess this is par for course.

I do believe the tone of the first post was a mistake
To accuse a charity of corruption with no evidence of corruption to a serious thing to do .
Even if you accept That there issuses with this horses care( which I do not on the evidence given) it does not amount to corruption.
You can't call posts unconstructive unhelpful etc because people don't take the same view as OP.
The brooke did not cause this horses suffering the RTA did that if I remember rightly OP said a one point she thought they should have moved the horse to some where with an X-ray machine ( why an xray would help a horses who was bleeding I don't know)
how could they have moved it, from her description it does not seem that would have been possible.
I glad the poor little thing died in peace off the street.
People are allowed views and in reply to an original post likt this you one you are going to get strong views that disagree that is what the forum is about.

 

[cronkmooar]

As for the burst stitches - OP saw those on her second visit - it was not left between the first and second visit with burst stitches.

Not sure if this is in response to my thread - but just to clarify - my understanding was that it was on the second visit that this was seen, however, when the OP seen this the vet was not making any attempt to rectify the situation but was just sat at a desk or chatting - as mentioned my memory is not clear on that and I cant be bothered trailing back!)

I did not think the horse had been left between visits like this - I would however have expected a vet to do something about burst stitches and quite a lot of blood loss and not just sat there doing sweet FA

 

[Goldenstar]

That is why the charity should have a reasonably detailed record of its cases. I'm not suggesting a post-mortem, simply some basic logging in information that can easily be shared between its staff on the ground and its HQ and main fundraising arm. I am honestly shocked that such a basic system is not in place.

I find it quite obvious that the OP is not necessarily the most foresighted narrator (in terms of judging what goes down well to the HHO "jury") and occasionally is quite emotive. I don't get the impression she is out to promote another charity (and even if she were, if she genuinely thought it was in the interests of equine welfare, this would not be morally wrong). I also get the impression that any emotive comments are due to her genuine shock and dismay at what she witnessed.

I used to donate to the Brooke. I now donate to another equine charity in Egypt. I am not going to go into why I have made this choice. I think the Brooke is a great organisation, certainly in the past, the aims it was set up for are very laudable.
I was not impressed by the general and condescending latest statement by the Brooke one little bit. It was peppered by phrases such as "it is likely that" and "we believe that". The complainant was referred to as "the lady" and I thought slightly belittled. However there are some of us who see perhaps all too readily through this sort of pr blurb, and there was nothing of substance in the latest response. As I said, I or indeed anyone, who had no knowledge of the individual case, could have written it.

I cannot see why people think its unreasonable, bearing in mind charities are expected to be both open and accountable, to actually know what work they are carrying out on the ground when specifically questioned about it - the Brooke is quite a large charity but still relatively manageable compared to some.

I have no issue with op questioning what she saw but I have an issue with being asked to help expose corruption and then being given no evidence of it.

 

[Mithras]

I have no issue with op questioning what she saw but I have an issue with being asked to help expose corruption and then being given no evidence of it.

I would refer you to my previous post (my apologies as there are a fair number) on the difference between corruption and deficient delivery of a service in the charities sector.

 

[AmyMay]

I have no issue with op questioning what she saw but I have an issue with being asked to help expose corruption and then being given no evidence of it.

I don't think you have have you?

 

[AMH]

I would refer you to my previous post (my apologies as there are a fair number) on the difference between corruption and deficient delivery of a service in the charities sector.

Sorry to butt in, but I would refer you to my previous post regarding the OP's use of the word 'corrupt'. I would ask the OP to clarify what she feels constitutes corruption.

 

[Goldenstar]

I don't think you have have you?

From the first post" this charity is corrupt to the core" and " please help me expose this charity" .

 

[stormalong]

When you go out to Luxor and see the facilities at The Brooke, and the other 2 charities out there. You witness the care, or lack of care given to 2 animals, and then you look into how much money each of the charities raise. Now I appreciate The Brooke have other outposts, however where is the money going to?? That's one of my concerns - why does the charity with the largest income by far, have such poor facilities, and a vet well......
words fail me, at his lack of care. The money is not going to the animals, it must be going elsewhere.

I went to The Brooke the day after the horse died too. I haven't dare go into what I say that day. However, as they say, that's another story. I had subjected myself to enough heartache.

 

[AMH]

When you go out to Luxor and see the facilities at The Brooke, and the other 2 charities out there. You witness the care, or lack of care given to 2 animals, and then you look into how much money each of the charities raise. Now I appreciate The Brooke have other outposts, however where is the money going to?? That's one of my concerns - why does the charity with the largest income by far, have such poor facilities, and a vet well......
words fail me, at his lack of care. The money is not going to the animals, it must be going elsewhere.

I went to The Brooke the day after the horse died too. I haven't dare go into what I say that day. However, as they say, that's another story. I had subjected myself to enough heartache.

If what you saw the day after the horse died was worse than what you've already told us you've seen, have you raised that with the charity too?

And, for that matter, have you raised with them the point about their funding levels? Or if you already have, could you let us know what they told you? Their published accounts will give details of their spending distribution.

 

[Hells Bells]

When you go out to Luxor and see the facilities at The Brooke, and the other 2 charities out there. You witness the care, or lack of care given to 2 animals, and then you look into how much money each of the charities raise. Now I appreciate The Brooke have other outposts, however where is the money going to?? That's one of my concerns - why does the charity with the largest income by far, have such poor facilities, and a vet well......
words fail me, at his lack of care. The money is not going to the animals, it must be going elsewhere.

I went to The Brooke the day after the horse died too. I haven't dare go into what I say that day. However, as they say, that's another story. I had subjected myself to enough heartache.

I personally, do not feel there has been a case for his lack of care at all. The Brooke's response to the email quoted earlier explained all of the issues you had, I feel. It needs to be remembered that they cannot provide the level of care that we are so lucky to be able to afford over here.

And as for what you saw the other day...well, I think it's probably best you do not raise that here.

 

[rhino]

Let's try once more

Where do you stand now then? I found a link to the Brooke's complaint procedure earlier and can look it out again for you? As you obviously feel they are not telling the truth are you going to take it further?

If you have time could you also clarify the posting on the Brooke's facebook status by your friend, to put my pedanticness at ease? Was it the post referring to the (now deleted) tripadvisor comment?

Thanks, R

I find it difficult to believe that anyone who is apparently so passionate about welfare, and who I would expect to have a good knowledge of medical issues, will not follow through such serious allegations.

'Anonymous' forums are a very good way of making a lot of noise. Sometimes that can be for the good, but action would be better.

 

[fburton]

So why then assume that the charity must be in the right, the OP is wrong and the OP is further wrong by using her best endeavours to bring her concerns to public light?

It is surely better to err on the side of giving the charity the benefit of the doubt until a proper investigation is done and the full facts known. Why? Because of the potential consequences of assuming that the charity is in the wrong when actually they are in the right is that considerable damage is done to their reputation and hence in their ability to attract donations and to help equines. On the other hand, the potential consequences of assuming that OP is in the wrong when actually she is in the right is that one person's reputation is dented - not such a big deal!

 

[Mithras]

It is surely better to err on the side of giving the charity the benefit of the doubt until a proper investigation is done and the full facts known. Why? Because of the potential consequences of assuming that the charity is in the wrong when actually they are in the right is that considerable damage is done to their reputation and hence in their ability to attract donations and to help equines. On the other hand, the potential consequences of assuming that OP is in the wrong when actually she is in the right is that one person's reputation is dented - not such a big deal!

That sounds absolutely lovely. However we are not going to get a "proper investigation done". No police force is going to investigate with all the experience of gathering evidence and weighing up whether the CPS will find it suitable, no lawyers are likely to be employed to do the same in a civil case. What is most likely to happen is that there will be a minor "investigation" by the charity involved, which, if lucky, will not be a pr exercise, but which will, due to the very fact that it is the charity itself carrying it out, be in conflict of interest. However since, in my personal opinion, the charity seems to have somewhat distant record keeping processes, if at all, I wonder how that investigation can be properly facilitated, post partum.

Surely there should be in place, as well as basic record keeping of cases available to HQ, a scheduled review of cases dealt with on a frequent basis?

I, for one, am perfectly capable of making up my own mind on evidence publicly available from a variety of sources on which charities to donate to. I would assume that the average person of sound mind is equally able to do so.

 

[wizzlewoo]

Now I appreciate The Brooke have other outposts, however where is the money going to??

I have stayed as an observer until now but I find it difficult to understand how someone can post about a cause when they have done no apparent further research into. I spent 2 minutes looking at the Brook's website and found their complete annual finance report from the past 5 years showing exactly where the money is going right down to how much they spend on staffing, research and fundraising events. It would seem that there is a marked reduction in these costs from 2010-2011 showing that they are continuing to reduce the amount not spent on the animals.
I understand that you were obviously shocked and upset at what you saw on your trip to Luxor and commend you for speaking up about it but I feel very strongly that anyone who is going to pursue a topic as sensitive as this must make sure they have as many of the relevant facts first.

http://www.thebrooke.org/about-us/our-financial-reports/annual-reports

 

[AMH]

That sounds absolutely lovely. However we are not going to get a "proper investigation done". No police force is going to investigate with all the experience of gathering evidence and weighing up whether the CPS will find it suitable, no lawyers are likely to be employed to do the same in a civil case. What is most likely to happen is that there will be a minor "investigation" by the charity involved, which, if lucky, will not be a pr exercise, but which will, due to the very fact that it is the charity itself carrying it out, be in conflict of interest. However since, in my personal opinion, the charity seems to have somewhat distant record keeping processes, if at all, I wonder how that investigation can be properly facilitated, post partum.

Surely there should be in place, as well as basic record keeping of cases available to HQ, a scheduled review of cases dealt with on a frequent basis?

I, for one, am perfectly capable of making up my own mind on evidence publicly available from a variety of sources on which charities to donate to. I would assume that the average person of sound mind is equally able to do so.

Agreed that case reviews and audits of those reviews should take place on a frequent basis. However, the more reviews, reports and record-keeping, the more administration expense and the less spent on treatment, education, facilities and the like.

I don't suggest for one minute that good record-keeping and regular reviews are not absolutely essential, but if it becomes too onerous then resources will necessarily be diverted from front-line operations.

Catch 22...?

 

[Goldenstar]

I have stayed as an observer until now but I find it difficult to understand how someone can post about a cause when they have done no apparent further research into. I spent 2 minutes looking at the Brook's website and found their complete annual finance report from the past 5 years showing exactly where the money is going right down to how much they spend on staffing, research and fundraising events. It would seem that there is a marked reduction in these costs from 2010-2011 showing that they are continuing to reduce the amount not spent on the animals.
I understand that you were obviously shocked and upset at what you saw on your trip to Luxor and commend you for speaking up about it but I feel very strongly that anyone who is going to pursue a topic as sensitive as this must make sure they have as many of the relevant facts first.

http://www.thebrooke.org/about-us/our-financial-reports/annual-reports

Thanks for that link .

 

[fburton]

That sounds absolutely lovely.

It's just common sense.

However we are not going to get a "proper investigation done".

Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to come to a definite conclusion without knowing the relevant facts.

No police force is going to investigate with all the experience of gathering evidence and weighing up whether the CPS will find it suitable, no lawyers are likely to be employed to do the same in a civil case. What is most likely to happen is that there will be a minor "investigation" by the charity involved, which, if lucky, will not be a pr exercise, but which will, due to the very fact that it is the charity itself carrying it out, be in conflict of interest. However since, in my personal opinion, the charity seems to have somewhat distant record keeping processes, if at all, I wonder how that investigation can be properly facilitated, post partum.

Are you referring to their record keeping in general or just this specific case?

Surely there should be in place, as well as basic record keeping of cases available to HQ, a scheduled review of cases dealt with on a frequent basis?

I would certainly hope so.

 

[Goldenstar]

Agreed that case reviews and audits of those reviews should take place on a frequent basis. However, the more reviews, reports and record-keeping, the more administration expense and the less spent on treatment, education, facilities and the like.

I don't suggest for one minute that good record-keeping and regular reviews are not absolutely essential, but if it becomes too onerous then resources will necessarily be diverted from front-line operations.

Catch 22...?

Agree with this the NHS is drowning in record keeping but it's not stopping bad care in some cases.

 

[rockysmum]

Having caught up with all 33 pages

I suspect the real problem here is peoples expectations. We donate to these charities and expect the care to be of a standard we would expect for our own. Perhaps not the amount of equipment, drugs etc, but we expect the staff to be doing the job for love not just money.

If that had been my horse I would have expected the vet or at least nurses to monitor it and show some care in whether it lived or died. Perhaps the policy of employing local vets on very low wages isn't a good one.

Brooke have probably not done anything wrong but it is still not we expect when we donate.

Would they put pics of this horses care in their brochures, I doubt it.

Perhaps they need to be more honest about the levels of care they actually provide. If their policy is not to have equipment such as xrays and therefore only treat the obvious, they should say so.

But I for one would not have donated if I knew that was what the money was going towards. Perhaps thats why people are upset.

Their calendar on my office wall paints a very different picture

 

[ChesnutsRoasting]

Why when we don't agree do some people have to descend quickly to being unpleasant "not in My right mind "I just don't agree with you.
As you say what AH's wrote is ambiguous but you need to take care when you move outside of the forum into real life what anyone types on here a member can take up directly, not so once you have pressed send and it's with a third party its a different matter.

Then I would advise that you that don't write anything that you would want repeating. Once in the world wide web, you have no control.

 

[ChesnutsRoasting]

To believe that a charity is above question and infallible to corruption is plain stupid. And I am quite happy to have categorised myself as that for years until someone made me 'aware' that 80% of all donations were going to administration fees. Large reputable charities too.
The OP brought awareness to a situation that she experienced - was she wrong to do that?
The culture on this forum is damned if you do, damned if you don't. If the OP had mentioned that she witnessed this years ago, undoubtedly the immediate reaction would have been outrage that she did not make people 'aware’ of this.
Awareness brings attention, it makes people think, it can force an investigation, it can right wrongs, it can drive improvement.
In this the OP IMO was correct to document her findings.
And yes I still hold to the fact that a lot of the responses were completely unconstructive, unhelpful, argumentative and served no purpose in terms of the subject matter which was in its essence a case of one animal suffering.

But then this is HHO so I guess this is par for course.

Great post

 

[Goldenstar]

Then I would advise that you that don't write anything that you would want repeating. Once in the world wide web, you have no control.

I did not write anything I would want repeating.
I objected to an other poster emailing the Brooke saying that the members of HHO had reacted with consternation to OP's allegations I had not reacted with consternation and objected to her speaking for the forum and therefore attributing reactions to me (and other members )that I do no not hold.

 

[ChesnutsRoasting]

I did not write anything I would want repeating.
I objected to an other poster emailing the Brooke saying that the members of HHO had reacted with consternation to OP's allegations I had not reacted with consternation and objected to her speaking for the forum and therefore attributing reactions to me (and other members )that I do no not hold.

Then you need to get a life. Seriously.