Ladydragon
Well-Known Member
Fair point... It's just the wanton use of "You're a bully" when it so obviously isn't just drives me a bit batty...
My tolerance levels for true bullying are slim and none...
The Brooke animal hospital causes suffering to animals
- Thread starter stormalong
- Start date
Fair point... It's just the wanton use of "You're a bully" when it so obviously isn't just drives me a bit batty...
My tolerance levels for true bullying are slim and none...
JFTDWS
+++ Out of Cheese Error +++
I was always under the impression that you should stand up for other people if you believe them to be in the right, regardless of whether they need you to or not 
I guess it's a morality thing, and since I've never been one for following other people's rules, I won't hand my responsibility to make moral choices for myself over at this juncture, thanks Wagtail 
I guess it's a morality thing, and since I've never been one for following other people's rules, I won't hand my responsibility to make moral choices for myself over at this juncture, thanks Wagtail 
Wagtail
Horse servant
Yes, of course, as I would do if around ten other people had not already done so. Obviously, you could all have just been responding to the post before reading the other responses. But seeing so many one after the other looked rather OTT. I would have been embarassed, personally.
FionaM12
Well-Known Member
Yes, of course, as I would do if around ten other people had not already done so. Obviously, you could all have just been responding to the post before reading the other responses. But seeing so many one after the other looked rather OTT. I would have been embarassed, personally.
I think my post was actually the first.
Wagtail
Horse servant
I hate bullying with a passion too.
rhino
Well-Known Member
I would hope every one of us would. I'm happy to stand or fall by the words I write, and if people are so offended by that they put me on UI it's fine
Wagtail
Horse servant
I think my post was actually the first.
Fine, and I'm sorry to all those who posted without seeing all the other responses. I just don't like seeing anyone being jumped on by so many others even if they have made a misjudgement. If however, they are being blatently cruel to their horse, or to another person (and I don't mean one angry, misjudged remark), then all pile in
Wagtail
Horse servant
I would hope every one of us would. I'm happy to stand or fall by the words I write, and if people are so offended by that they put me on UI it's fine
Exactly.
Holly Hocks
Well-Known Member
I am glad The Brooke have responded. I will continue with my monthly payment to them
stormalong
Active Member
What really concerns me about The Brooke's latest response about the injuries to the horse, is that they mention the horses injuries - on the right side - as they call it, (which are evident in the photograph that I sent to them) however make no mention of the injuries on the other side. So I feel they are just commenting on what they can see, and not the full story. After all, I was there on the day. On my first visit I saw the horse lying on its near side, and when I returned it was propped up on its off side. There was a huge open wound on its hind leg - you could easily fit a football in it. The vet said it was a drain.
Within 2 hours of me seeing the horse, and I did arrive shortly after the accident, the horse was dead. The 'highly experienced vet' as The Brooke quotes him - assured me the horse had superficial wounds and would make a full recovery.
The question of putting to sleep has been raised on the forum. However, The Brooke do not say that the owner in question refused this. I was with the horse 15 minutes before it died. The vet was sat with other Egyptians chatting - when I raised concerns about the horse - he dismissed them entirely and said it would be fine. He didn't get up to check the horse, even though I was very concerned about its condition. By this time the sedation had worn off.
Why can they not afford an x-ray machine? In an earlier post they say it could not be justified? There are 350 caleche horses along the Corniche in Luxor, this does not include all the other horses and donkeys working in Luxor, which must be in the region of an extra 200 animals.
Why did the Brooke send the dog home with a bandage round it when it had 2 broken legs?
When it went to ACE it was put to sleep. Why leave a dog in agony? The owner of the dog wasn't against euthanasia.
I felt I had to raise your concerns. Everyone can make their own decision on which charity they support. However look at other charities in the area, and look at their facilities, and what they can provide - then make your mind up on who delivers the best care. Someone earlier posted that ACE must generate more western money than The Brooke - they do not even come close.
I know what I saw that day - I saw it first hand, and so did the vet in question. Remember vets in Egypt do not get paid large amounts, and many of them do not train on horses. Vets out there are trained on animals in the food chain, this does not include horses. Their wages are approx. £2,500 a year - so not a big drain on the 14.8m The Brooke generate.
A good reply from no doubt a highly paid person in an office in London trained to dealing with publicity for the charity. No doubt more mailings will appear through my door this week from The Brooke, and I will find their advertisements in the national newspapers.
Money going to the sharp end - I don't think so.
Within 2 hours of me seeing the horse, and I did arrive shortly after the accident, the horse was dead. The 'highly experienced vet' as The Brooke quotes him - assured me the horse had superficial wounds and would make a full recovery.
The question of putting to sleep has been raised on the forum. However, The Brooke do not say that the owner in question refused this. I was with the horse 15 minutes before it died. The vet was sat with other Egyptians chatting - when I raised concerns about the horse - he dismissed them entirely and said it would be fine. He didn't get up to check the horse, even though I was very concerned about its condition. By this time the sedation had worn off.
Why can they not afford an x-ray machine? In an earlier post they say it could not be justified? There are 350 caleche horses along the Corniche in Luxor, this does not include all the other horses and donkeys working in Luxor, which must be in the region of an extra 200 animals.
Why did the Brooke send the dog home with a bandage round it when it had 2 broken legs?
When it went to ACE it was put to sleep. Why leave a dog in agony? The owner of the dog wasn't against euthanasia.
I felt I had to raise your concerns. Everyone can make their own decision on which charity they support. However look at other charities in the area, and look at their facilities, and what they can provide - then make your mind up on who delivers the best care. Someone earlier posted that ACE must generate more western money than The Brooke - they do not even come close.
I know what I saw that day - I saw it first hand, and so did the vet in question. Remember vets in Egypt do not get paid large amounts, and many of them do not train on horses. Vets out there are trained on animals in the food chain, this does not include horses. Their wages are approx. £2,500 a year - so not a big drain on the 14.8m The Brooke generate.
A good reply from no doubt a highly paid person in an office in London trained to dealing with publicity for the charity. No doubt more mailings will appear through my door this week from The Brooke, and I will find their advertisements in the national newspapers.
Money going to the sharp end - I don't think so.
Casey76
Well-Known Member
While I don't dispute what you saw (as I wasn't there), if there were undiagnosed internal injuries (and things like a liver haemorrhage can be extremely difficult to diagnose), there are a multitude of possible causes of death which could also not be foreseen (infarct, embolism, aneurysm, haemorrhage etc).
Why was the vet dismissive of you? Well he may have been on a 10 min coffee break after working tirelessly for hours before you arrived. Unless you camped out there all day, you have no idea what his work schedule was like. the horse may have been checked just prior to your arrival.
I also think you have to take into consideration differences in culture and attitude to animals in general. Even to a vet, that horse may have been "just another horse" who had been injured, patched up with what was available and periodically checked upon. Maybe there isn't the staff to do 15 min checks on all of the patients... who knows? To him you might have been "another bl**dy Westerner sticking her nose in."
Why was the vet dismissive of you? Well he may have been on a 10 min coffee break after working tirelessly for hours before you arrived. Unless you camped out there all day, you have no idea what his work schedule was like. the horse may have been checked just prior to your arrival.
I also think you have to take into consideration differences in culture and attitude to animals in general. Even to a vet, that horse may have been "just another horse" who had been injured, patched up with what was available and periodically checked upon. Maybe there isn't the staff to do 15 min checks on all of the patients... who knows? To him you might have been "another bl**dy Westerner sticking her nose in."
rhino
Well-Known Member
Storm - have you taken your concerns to the Brooke straight? If you are not happy with the answers you are being given then ask what their charity's complaint procedure is - they must have one. There are channels to follow and you say you have proof of them lying.
I just don't think a public forum is the place for this, sorry. If it is taken further and is in the public domain anyway, then that's different IMO.
Well done for sticking to your guns though
I just don't think a public forum is the place for this, sorry. If it is taken further and is in the public domain anyway, then that's different IMO.
Well done for sticking to your guns though
misterjinglejay
Well-Known Member
I've read this thread with interest, as I do the PFK, Cairo Farrier, ESAF, etc threads on FB.
There's no doubting that it's a nightmare situation out there (as it is for animals in many parts of the world, including the good ol' UK). And these charities, and their staff, are really fighting against the tide of poverty, ignorance, religeous beliefs and so on.
I won't stop donating to them, and I would urge others to continue to support them. The animals need our help.
We don't know the truth of this incident (not that I'm doubting the OP at all), and maybe never will. But if we all stopped aiding them, the horror they suffer daily, would surely get much worse.
I for one, need to know that I'm doing what I can, however small.
There's no doubting that it's a nightmare situation out there (as it is for animals in many parts of the world, including the good ol' UK). And these charities, and their staff, are really fighting against the tide of poverty, ignorance, religeous beliefs and so on.
I won't stop donating to them, and I would urge others to continue to support them. The animals need our help.
We don't know the truth of this incident (not that I'm doubting the OP at all), and maybe never will. But if we all stopped aiding them, the horror they suffer daily, would surely get much worse.
I for one, need to know that I'm doing what I can, however small.
Destiny95
Well-Known Member
It is a shame the response is so marketing and PR led. I would have hoped they would have at least said they would work with the Luxor outpost to ensure they have the right staff and facilities to help animals that their limited resources will allow.
It would not be unreasonable for them to just consider that a member of staff they have at one outpost doesn't represent the same high standard of care and positive attitude the Brooke prides itself on. It is not unlikely that a large organisation like this has a few bad apples.
They obviously do good work, but this response is designed to make us shut up and stop talking about it and frankly makes me think less of them.
Mithras
Well-Known Member
Sorry, but I really do disagree. There is absolutely no agreement/protocol/legislative requirement for people who have issues with charities to keep them secret or discuss them with the charity first. If it were considered that important, it would be legislated for.
I cannot see how this issue is not suitable for the public domain. In fact, I would say that the charities sector hugely benefits from the discussion of concerns on public forums, as it serves as a check and balance function which is not provided by the Charities Commission, which has limited powers and cannot intervene in areas concerning the services that a charity provides (as opposed, for example, to financial irregularities).
Charities are by their very nature, public bodies. They recieve huge tax benefits and public funding to fuel their very existence, and benefit from seperate legal persona. Public reporting of concerns has served regulation of the charities sector well in the past, as sometimes it is the only way that concerns have become known. The average member of the public cannot be expected to be as well versed in dealing with the charities sector as those who work in fundraising or pr for instance, and suggesting that they should be curtailed in making their concerns about a charity publicly known goes against the whole ethos of charities working for the benefit of others (as opposed to themselves).
Furthermore, charities in many ways are subject to fiduciary duties which raises the standard of their behaviour in certain aspects, and which makes them open to being judged by members of the public. I really do not think the charities sector should be shrouded in secrecy, and members of the public deterred by coming forwards with concerns.
I see no reason why a culture of secrecy should be encouraged. Furthermore, in this instance, the issue was abroad and the charity seemed unaware of it and in need of checking its facts, which suggests a remoteness from its activites on the ground. Why should the charity have to be told what is happening by third parties anyway?
Can I say again, that I see no reason why a culture of secrecy should be encouraged, and that it honestly makes me suspicious when it is suggested that one should be.
I think there is a divergence of interest here. To me, the OP seems more concerned about horses and their welfare, on the other hand, some posters seem more concerned with the public image of the charity involved.
Last edited:
rhino
Well-Known Member
If you have concerns contact them... of course they are going to put a carefully worded statement on a public forum. They are perfectly willing to answer questions as they have repeatedly stated. As it stands you have absolutely no idea of what work they have done since the complaint was reported, and is still ongoing.
rhino
Well-Known Member
No-one has ever said that it should be kept secret or that OP should't follow it up.
The Brooke (according to the font of all knowledge that is wikipedia
) has over 800 staff 'in the field'. How on earth do you expect the named contact in the UK to be aware of all the staff and every animal they treat? If they had not 'checked their facts' by contacting their people in Egypt but stated they knew exactly what was going on, there would have (rightly) been outcry on here.I think the Brooke was on a hiding to nothing in this thread. Whatever they replied, however they dealt with it certain people were not willing or able to change their views. At the end of the day I do find that sad. It is all down to the opinion of one person. I am also going to ask for clarity into IPC's 'naming and shaming' policy.
OP - the Brooke does indeed have a formulated complaints procedure, which can be found here. Please keep us updated as to how you get on
Destiny95
Well-Known Member
A carefully worded statement could still have included 'thanks for bringing your concern to our attention and we will look into it'.
I can't see anything in the statement that suggests they will look into it - internally or externally - which is a shame as it would have helped them to show they were acting on feedback.
We all want to see The Brooke to use their money as efficiently as possible to help animals in need - thats why we donate to them. Surely that is why the responses to this post are so passionate - because we don't want it to be true! I'd suggest feedback - good and especially bad - should be taken notice of by The Brooke. As you quite rightly say Rhino, they can't possibly be aware of everything going on across the charity...
Mithras
Well-Known Member
The Brooke (according to the font of all knowledge that is wikipedia
In the timescale that had passed, I would expect them to have found out the details of this incident, yes. If the named contact in the UK is not aware of all their staff and every animal they treat, or there is not at least a simple logging in procedure which makes the facilitation of this information easily accessible, what is the point in them raising money in the UK?
Accountability is hardly an unreasonable requirment of a charity.
Its not simply the concern of one person...
I still see the concern as not being primarily about the Brooke, but about the welfare of equines. Therefore, I would have been more reassured by a response from the Brooke addressing this and thanking the OP for making them aware of this issue, followed up by a more detailed response. Of course this may yet happen in time.
OP - the Brooke does indeed have a formulated complaints procedure, which can be found here. Please keep us updated as to how you get on
Again, there is no requirement on the OP to contact the charity with her concern direct. In fact, it does seem that when she did contact them with her concern, their response was initially to deny their involvment. Furthermore, there is a clear conflict of interest in making such a complaint direct to the charity itself, and since they are funded by public donation, it seems not inappropriate to raise the issue in public.
This almost sounds like a threat. Its actually a little unclear what you mean here, but I am guessing you will contact the forum administrators with a view to having the thread pulled in case there is any risk of libel action against IPC, the parent company of H&H.
I should therefore point out at this juncture that there is a great deal of difference between a successful defamation action, funded by a Plaintiff in the courts, and a company taking protective action on the basis of whistleblowing. This is assuming the Plaintiff in question wished to publicise such a matter and the costs associated in an area of law which is barely governed by judicial precedent and in which each case tends to stand heavily on its own facts.
I am assuming, by your comments, that you have some reason to think this is a possible avenue of action? Because I find it highly improbable. I think the bad publicity for any charity in using its funds to support an extremely expensive libel action regarding concerns raised on a public forum against it would be so highly damaging that no charity would even wish to be tainted by such a suggestion (and indeed the Brooke have certainly implied nothing of the kind, and, I hope, would be shocked at such a scenario).
I am certainly in favour of openness when discussing the charities sector. In fact, in the employment law sector, we are seeing a tendency towards ever-increasing legalised protection of whistleblowers (and it is of course the case that not all cases can be proven internally or even satisfactorally investigated first before the correct stage for making known areas of concern can be reached).
I am sure that the Brooke will welcome such reports from members of the public on the ground, once they have had time to deal with this.
rhino
Well-Known Member
Okayyyyy....
No, I would like to know why we are unable do discuss other charities/products/people on here yet for others it is fine.
Do you ever switch out of 'work' mode?
Mithras
Well-Known Member
Okayyyyy....
No, I would like to know why we are unable do discuss other charities/products/people on here yet for others it is fine.
Do you ever switch out of 'work' mode?
Sorry? I'm simply responding to what you're saying. You can't on the one hand, raise serious legal questions and then on the other hand, say its they're not relevant when someone responds to answer them...;-)
But I really am for openness, and accountability, in the charities sector (as if no-one could be in doubt of that by now!)
As for your first point, I really couldn't say. I would guess its partly button pushing, as for the rest, I'm not on here often enough to say. Maybe a new thread on this topic?
rhino
Well-Known Member
I wasn't aware I had raised any serious legal questions
I just don't understand why one charity is allowed to be named and shamed and another one not, therefore knowing what IPC's take on the issue is would possibly help somewhat. I fail to see what starting another thread would do when my question is not aimed at other posters FionaM12
Well-Known Member
I'm not suggesting that your concerns aren't genuine and your account not valid, but I don't think little biased comments like this help your case. Surely you emailed the London office, so of course that's where the reply came from?
And what has the pay of their admin staff got to do with anything? I hope they do pay their staff properly, but I doubt it's a lot.Digs like this make it look like you have a grudge IMO I'm afraid.
Freddie19
Well-Known Member
Sorry, but in the email I sent to Brooke at the onset of this thread, they replied as I have said before, "we are investigating this claim" and are very aware of public posting. As another poster said, I will not post on here their emails to me. I was not going to get involved in this thread anymore, but it seems to be going from very bad to worse. Could I please ask just one question of original poster, maybe I have missed them, but did you post on here the photographs? If you were not able to do so, did you send them to Brooke? Have they replied to you, I personally would be very disappointed if they have not done so, as you must have lots of information to give them regarding this incident, including I would hope the name of the vet concerned...but please do not post that on here.
CatStew
Well-Known Member
This!!
I've been following this thread with interest, and it does seem that the OP has a grudge against The Brooke, and is bias towards other charities. Apologies if I'm wrong, but it does come across this way. At the end of the day, the welfare of the animals in every country should be paramount for all animal charities, regardless of which charity it is. Same steak, different gravy, if you like.
I feel that if anybody has any further questions regarding this incident, they should contact The Brooke directly (as The Brooke have already advised) rather then posting on an internet forum where the whole world and his wife can read it. They will able to provide the definite facts. I feel that if this thread continues, it could be detrimental not only to The Brooke, but it may also lead to people questioning where their regular donations/fundraising leads to.
Last edited:
Patterdale
Well-Known Member
It gets a bit heavy in here doesn't it..!? Courts, libels, plaintiffs..!
So far as I can see, someone posts a fairly serious accusation against a charity which makes others mistrust said charity and stop giving money. Charity takes enough notice to come on here and defend itself and is slammed for doing so. Charity defends itself again, again not good enough. What more can they do?
I agree that the OP shouldn't have said all that she did in the op (which by the way is very interesting when you have a re-read at this stage). Not because it is illegal - it's not. But I BELIEVE that it is morally just not the right way to go about it. This is backed up by the people cancelling standing orders etc off the back of it.*
The bottom line is, that unfortunately, s*** happens. Particularly in poorer countries.
*And it no doubt looks worse if you're not used to seeing it.*
For example, if a non farming person were to come into our lambing shed and take a look inside the old sack in the corner you may be shocked! But what looks cruel to some may not always be, particularly if housing know all the details.*
It sounds like this horse, whether or not he had a new fresh clean bed, had a better death than he would have had had the Brooke not been there. And surely that is the important thing here.*
And the fact that people are questioning why there were flies on a bleeding horse in the desert I find baffling.*
I feel for the Brooke here.*
So far as I can see, someone posts a fairly serious accusation against a charity which makes others mistrust said charity and stop giving money. Charity takes enough notice to come on here and defend itself and is slammed for doing so. Charity defends itself again, again not good enough. What more can they do?
I agree that the OP shouldn't have said all that she did in the op (which by the way is very interesting when you have a re-read at this stage). Not because it is illegal - it's not. But I BELIEVE that it is morally just not the right way to go about it. This is backed up by the people cancelling standing orders etc off the back of it.*
The bottom line is, that unfortunately, s*** happens. Particularly in poorer countries.
*And it no doubt looks worse if you're not used to seeing it.*
For example, if a non farming person were to come into our lambing shed and take a look inside the old sack in the corner you may be shocked! But what looks cruel to some may not always be, particularly if housing know all the details.*
It sounds like this horse, whether or not he had a new fresh clean bed, had a better death than he would have had had the Brooke not been there. And surely that is the important thing here.*
And the fact that people are questioning why there were flies on a bleeding horse in the desert I find baffling.*
I feel for the Brooke here.*
Dirtymare
Well-Known Member
I'm not suggesting that your concerns aren't genuine and your account not valid, but I don't think little biased comments like this help your case. Surely you emailed the London office, so of course that's where the reply came from?
Digs like this make it look like you have a grudge IMO I'm afraid.
^^^^^ This.
Having been a tourist in Egypt on many occasions, I feel qualified to comment on the type of people Egyptians are.
I feel that the vet's response to the OP was what I would expect from any professional -ie not wishing to divulge the true extent of the horse's injuries to a total stranger and a tourist at that.
Egyptians have very little concideration to their animals, and alot do seem to treat them like machines. I feel this is a cultural thing.
I have been to Luxor and seen some of the poor donkeys pulling huge carts full of stuff. I have seen them waiting out in the blistering sun without food or water. Some kind owners do tip the cart so the donkey has shade, but others dont.
I know Egypt is suffering from a poor tourist trade at present, and they rely on tourists for their living.
I know The Brook do outstanding work. If people stop their donations, think of the increased suffering poor horses and donkeys will have to endure without The Brook and other such charities.
AmyMay
Situation normal
I suspect that if the Brooke were at all concerned about this thread, they would have asked for it's removal.
The fact that (unlike tin pot 'charities') they haven't is all credit to them.
rhino
Well-Known Member
touchstone
Well-Known Member
Very well said, I completely agree.