Goldenstar
Well-Known Member
Sicken you to the core why because some people don't aggree with you.
The Brooke animal hospital causes suffering to animals
- Thread starter stormalong
- Start date
Sicken you to the core why because some people don't aggree with you.
rhino
Well-Known Member
Have you actually read the thread? OP herself has now changed her tune, and there are very serious concerns regarding the truth of her posts.
The 'real issue' should be the truth, and I'm guessing I'm not the only one who doesn't think we are getting it from the OP. If it is wrong to want the truth, then yes, I am very wrong.
Achinghips
Well-Known Member
Thank you for your appreciating my post Catstew.
Goldenstar
Well-Known Member
Any chance of you saying sorry to me.
CatStew
Well-Known Member
X
xspiralx
Guest
Notwithstanding other issues, I don't believe the OP has been inconsistent in her reporting of the events.
Stating that she was 'happy the horse was going to be okay' is not the same thing as being happy about the situation - she's saying she felt reassured by the vet. It is perfectly possible to find something extremely upsetting to witness, and also to have reservations over the level of care provided - but then to be reassured that despite distressing appearances, the horse would actually be okay.
I don't think there is any contradiction in the above.
Stating that she was 'happy the horse was going to be okay' is not the same thing as being happy about the situation - she's saying she felt reassured by the vet. It is perfectly possible to find something extremely upsetting to witness, and also to have reservations over the level of care provided - but then to be reassured that despite distressing appearances, the horse would actually be okay.
I don't think there is any contradiction in the above.
AMH
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure I understand your point - are you applauding the OP for accusing the Brooke of corruption (for which I have yet to see any credible evidence, even if the OP's version of these events is true)?
Or are you suggesting that we 'people' being offended by a seemingly unfounded allegation is 'plain stupid'? Corruption is rather difficult to deduce from one incident.
touchstone
Well-Known Member
I think that the above quote could apply in equal measure to the OP to be truthful! Nice that you think the posters who aren't quite behind the OP are plain stupid, how charming!
X
xspiralx
Guest
Why on earth would she say sorry to you?
She said in her email "members of the Horse and Hound forum." She did not say ALL members of the Horse and Hound forum, so I have no idea why you're getting so up in arms about it, as you were never implicated in her email whatsoever. Furthermore, The Brooke are aware of this thread and can perfectly well see who has posted what on the matter.
Frankly, your post just smacks of attention seeking.
Goldenstar
Well-Known Member
Among members, she attributed a view to me as I am a member she/ he has no right to do that to make a statement like that outside the forum ,itis not on she does not speak for all the members of HHO.
I not attention seeking but I feel very strongly about this you should not attribute views to others while writing to a third party .
X
xspiralx
Guest
Stating 'among members' absolutely does not state she is speaking for 'all the members of HHO.' It means exactly what it says - that 'members' (more than one) have expressed concern.
Had she said "all the members of HHO" or indeed "members, including Goldenstar" you may have a point, but nobody in their right mind would assume the statement in her email meant that.
Charley
Member
Oh dear oh dear. There appears to be a bunch of children in a playground arguing amongst themselves over irrelevant details.
Reasoned debate is always a good thing but try not to lose sight of the real issues raised in this post, bickering about what member said what to who and how is truly nonsense.
OP well done for caring and for flagging up your concerns to The Brooke. There are always two sides to every story. The chances of The Brooke holding their hands up and saying there was a problem with the vet or the treatment? nil. But we can hope that in light of your report any processes and practices that need to be changed will be addressed as a result. That would be a definite upside.
There is a lot of criticism of The Brooke, a lot of which I have sympathy with. There are other charities I prefer to donate to. But it is personal decision and if I had been the OP and witnessed what she witnessed, i'd have flagged up my concerns too. Perhaps not in the same way but i'm pleased she did it nonetheless.
Now....you can all get back to your Play-dough fight
Reasoned debate is always a good thing but try not to lose sight of the real issues raised in this post, bickering about what member said what to who and how is truly nonsense.
OP well done for caring and for flagging up your concerns to The Brooke. There are always two sides to every story. The chances of The Brooke holding their hands up and saying there was a problem with the vet or the treatment? nil. But we can hope that in light of your report any processes and practices that need to be changed will be addressed as a result. That would be a definite upside.
There is a lot of criticism of The Brooke, a lot of which I have sympathy with. There are other charities I prefer to donate to. But it is personal decision and if I had been the OP and witnessed what she witnessed, i'd have flagged up my concerns too. Perhaps not in the same way but i'm pleased she did it nonetheless.
Now....you can all get back to your Play-dough fight
Goldenstar
Well-Known Member
Stating 'among members' absolutely does not state she is speaking for 'all the members of HHO.' It means exactly what it says - that 'members' (more than one) have expressed concern.
Had she said "all the members of HHO" or indeed "members, including Goldenstar" you may have a point, but nobody in their right mind would assume the statement in her email meant that.
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.
stormalong
Active Member
Xspiralx - that it exactly how I was thinking, you have got me in one.
The sight I saw the first time was not nice, however to be told the horse would be fine, just superficial injuries, I went away happy it was going to recover. Why would I doubt the vet., its The Brooke for heavens sake the biggest animal charity abroad.
I doubted the vet when I returned! Mats were out of the stable, it was now on sand. The flies were in masses on its body, due to large open wounds, and blood was pouring out of it.
The vet still reiterated, from his seat, that the horse would be fine. Would you believe him?
Would you walk away thinking all was well with this charity?
I have been to Egypt a number of times, I know their perception of looking after their animals is different to ours. However, that is the locals. There are 2 other charities in Luxor that I know of, and their care is superior, I want The Brooke to raise their game and provide the same level of care. If they decide not to invest in equipment, but provide good veterinary care then so be it.
When you have been abroad and witnessed what can be achieved, surely The Brooke's standards should be of the same level, not poorer.
The sight I saw the first time was not nice, however to be told the horse would be fine, just superficial injuries, I went away happy it was going to recover. Why would I doubt the vet., its The Brooke for heavens sake the biggest animal charity abroad.
I doubted the vet when I returned! Mats were out of the stable, it was now on sand. The flies were in masses on its body, due to large open wounds, and blood was pouring out of it.
The vet still reiterated, from his seat, that the horse would be fine. Would you believe him?
Would you walk away thinking all was well with this charity?
I have been to Egypt a number of times, I know their perception of looking after their animals is different to ours. However, that is the locals. There are 2 other charities in Luxor that I know of, and their care is superior, I want The Brooke to raise their game and provide the same level of care. If they decide not to invest in equipment, but provide good veterinary care then so be it.
When you have been abroad and witnessed what can be achieved, surely The Brooke's standards should be of the same level, not poorer.
rhino
Well-Known Member
As you may have missed it earlier
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?
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
Could you also check your messages pretty please
touchstone
Well-Known Member
In the first instance I suspect it was highly unlikely that the vet was going to say that the horse would probably die, causing you obvious distress.
The horse was off mats and placed on straw according to the photographs you provided? Flies are understandable and sadly stitches do rupture. I also suspect that at this point the vet was unable to do more for the horse and knew the likely outcome, but wasn't prepared to say it outright to a tourist.
Would I walk away thinking all was well? - I'd probably think harder still about what a hard life these horses have and how better to help more of them. In my opinion the Brooke did what it could under the circumstances; they patched up the horse, gave it sedative and pain relief. What else could they have done? If the wounds were extensive there may have been little skin that would hold left to stitch anyway, especially after they had already ruptured. There are horses that die every day in the uk, even with high standards of veterinary treatment, recovering after surgery.
I don't believe that in this instance the Brooke 'caused suffering' I think they did what they could to alleviate it under the circumstances.
Last edited:
Lark
Well-Known Member
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.
rhino
Well-Known Member
I would struggle to believe that any of the posters would question or disagree with that statement
Wasn't it in essence one person's assertions that an animal was suffering, and that the suffering was preventable? Do you think everyone should have taken the OP at face value? Do you believe that everything you read on here is true?
Moomin1
Well-Known Member
You make some valid points about damned if you do, damned if you don't on this forum - it quite often is like that on here. However, in this instance it appears the OP has a few inconsistencies and has also, to be quite blunt, made an assumpion that the horse was in a suffering state due to Brooke's negligence just because of a moment in time that she witness. She wasn't in receipt of all of the facts surrounding the horse's care - she merely witnessed it in the box recovering from anaesthetic. I fully agree with Brooke's statement - there is nothing they can do about flies, stitches do burst, the horse was heavy breathing because of the sedation -my horse pours with sweat and groans when she has sedation (within seconds) - it happens.
It is HIGHLY damaging and can cripple charities when people put things like this on public forums without being ABSOLUTELY certain that they have been negligent. Reputations stick unfortunately and it only takes a few posts like this (which are merely the OP's interpretation of what she saw - NOT fact) to ruin a perfectly decent charity.
As for 80% of donations going to admin fees in some charities - I would beg to differ on the statistics - but I am not sure on exact numbers. I do wonder though how it is that people can think charities don't have to spend money on admin?!! They do have to be efficient in their paperwork in order to be succesful and survive! Decent admin teams can be the key to succesful prosecutions/welfare causes/research etc etc and I wouldn't be unhappy for my donations to go towards that.
Last edited:
CatStew
Well-Known Member
This! In particular the bit in bold.
Lark
Well-Known Member
It certainly appeared that way from some of the initial responses I read.I would struggle to believe that any of the posters would question or disagree with that statement
Wasn't it in essence one person's assertions that an animal was suffering, and that the suffering was preventable? Do you think everyone should have taken the OP at face value? Do you believe that everything you read on here is true?
Of course not, that would be equally naive but do you think that the responders who slated the OP immediately had any greater proof that warranted such a catalogue of abuse?
Again, damned if you do, damned if you don't.
From here I will retire. There is a reason I never post in here, unfortunately I obviously lost my wits for a moment.
AMH
Well-Known Member
Considering this IS HHO, I have found this to be quite a grown-up discussion, actually! There's been far less mudslinging (certain posters excepted) than I've been used to.
Some people have asked to see the evidence - I appreciate that the OP found it hard to post the photos on here (I've struggled with that too!), and I also understand her concerns if the photos are graphic (which it sounds as if they are) but she could have asked people to PM e-mail addresses and e-mailed them over.
Language can be very emotive. For example, using the word 'pouring' to describe the animal's blood loss sounds unneccessarily emotive to me - if blood was literally pouring out of the horse, it would have been dead in a very short space of time. It's this (amongst other examples, like the 'corrupt to the core' statement), as well as the mention of another charity in contrast to the OP's experience at the Brooke, which lead me to be sceptical.
No-one on this forum would condone cruelty to animals or the unnecessary prolongation of suffering. And it's very difficult for us to comment without having been there at the time. But I'm afraid the OP opened herself up to question with her post, and must accept that people will want to debate the issues raised.
Last edited:
touchstone
Well-Known Member
Of course corruption goes on, but there is little evidence for it in this case in my opinion, and the treatment of the horse was also well explained, again in my opinion. Was the OP right to voice concerns? I'd say after contacting the Brooke initially and not receiving satisfaction it would have been a more appropriate action. Raising awareness is one thing, making assumptions and allegations is another and can be extremely damaging to any charity and the animals that depend on it. Jumping blindly on a bandwagon accusing a charity of corruption and ill treatment when in my opinion there was no evidence for this is a dangerous and more stupid thing to do, don't you think?
Mithras
Well-Known Member
Very general comments by the Brooke to the specific issues affecting this mare. I could have made those comments, without any knowledge of the individual facts, as could just about anyone. I do find it astonishing that a charity set up to promote horse welfare in one geographical area should have to be asked to investigate its ongoing work to provide answers to welfare concerns. I should have thought that all cases should be logged with as many details provided as possible. Otherwise, how can it be accountable as to how and where the funds it raises are going?
I don't see why the Brooke cannot provide a fly free operating and recovery environment, when it can provide large air conditioned offices for its staff in Egypt.
I am horrified by the gullibility of some HHO members on here, who seem to wish to willfully participate in some cover up, rather than investigating the truth. Without wishing to go into specifics without evidence, I for one have certainly heard similar things about the charity in question (while not wishing to denigrate any good work that it does do). I cannot imagine why anyone would want to hush up the OP, or what motives they would have in doing so.
As someone who has worked professionally in the regulation of the charities sector in the past, so much that has been said suggesting that the OP should have complained only via the charity itself (clear conflict of interest) is just utter nonsense. The whole ethos of regulation of the charities sector is towards increased openness and accountability, so to suggest the opposite is not only obstructive, but suspicious. I cannot see why anyone in their right mind could possibly object to a charity being open and accountable, and indeed held to account publicly (as they are public bodies) when someone believes they have witnessed an example of wrongdoing by it first hand.
Indeed, this case presents an excellent opportunity for the Brooke to demonstrate outstanding committment to its causes and in dealing with concerns of members of the public.
AMH
Well-Known Member
Unnecessarily inflammatory. Not everyone has an ulterior motive, some of us like to have the facts before we condone condemnation to the level of the original post.
Mithras
Well-Known Member
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?
Mithras
Well-Known Member
My thoughts entirely.
AMH
Well-Known Member
I haven't - but if you read my post above you'll see why I'm sceptical.
Moomin1
Well-Known Member
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?!
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.
Mithras
Well-Known Member
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.