Mylo is a Cites Appendix I listed bird, so selling him under the guise of a 'donation' without an Article 10 Certificate is a criminal offence.The RSPCA signed this bird into the hands of UKPR, who then sought to sell him on for a substantial profit without the relevant official paperwork.
Image: Mylo donation fee
UKPR asked Caron to emergency care/foster these two birds and not the other way around so no money was requested.
No money passed hands but that does not take away the 'intent' on the part of UKPR to sell this Cites Appendix I bird as the evidence proves.
If Caron had paid the 'donation' for Mylo then she too would have also been breaking the law just like UKPR.
Both birds were for sale on the UKPR online pet shop for 6 months prior with no buyers forthcoming (maybe because of the legal implications?).
Image: JJ donation fee
Why are a bunch of bird breeders/traders masquerading as rescuers unaware of their legal responsibilities, selling rescue birds to foster families through their online shop, and retaining ownership?
Now let me get this right, the RSPCA Rescue centres charge a fee to rehome a dog, last time I checked which was sometime ago it was £80, that too is called a donation, so if they do it maybe they have a pet shop trade going too. A donation Caron is charged so that the work of the (any) rescue can go on. Just thought I'd clear that up but no doubt this will not be posted will it???
ReplyDeleteMr. Rob (flakey)
ReplyDeleteThe RSPCA is a registered charity with all donated funds accountable.
UKPR is not a registered charity but still asks for 'donations' to be paid for birds handed into their possession.
P
dont get clever or to cockey,
ReplyDeleteTell me this then caron, did you call the ukpr rehoming section an online petshop whilst you were a member? Just wondered because you seem to have such an eloquent way with words.
ReplyDeleteBy the way Rob (Flakey), if you hadnt noticed, the post was about selling a bird illegaly.
ReplyDeleteIt would be along the lines of the RSPCA selling an American Pitbull to someone (banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991).
Both illegal trading practices!
Mr Rob (flakey)
ReplyDeleteSometimes it is not until after you experience something first hand does reality dawn on you!
Until then you are an outside observer.
Were these your words 2 weeks ago aimed at UKPR?
abez said...
Can I ask if you have properly accounted accounts and if you have why have you not produced any? And why if all volunteers pay for the birds keep and needs, why do yu charge a rehoming fee and where does this money go? Afterall you have stated if there are questions you're willing to answer tham.
I know exactly what I said and I also said I would go find out the truth which is in fact what I have done. The quote you have just posted by the way, was a question not an accusation.
ReplyDeleteYou seem very determined not to answer a simple question now asked twice, so I will leave this blog and carry on doing what I do best.
So have you seen the accounts with your own eyes then Rob (flakey)?
ReplyDeleteIf not then please do not say you have set out to find the truth and have done so!
Makes you look a little stupid...
Whether i viewed it as a pet shop before is a completely irrelevent question.
Did all those investors in Bernard Madoff think they were investing in one of the biggest frauds in history when giving him their money?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff
Isnt it when you become a part of something that you realise the truth?
And what is it you do best flakeyrob?
P
Question for you Flakey after quoting you and your advice for ukpr
ReplyDelete3.4 To enter into contracts, make funding applications, raise funds, and accept gifts and contributions to assist in the delivery of the stated objectives, providing they do not undertake any permanent trading activities in raising the funds.
Can I take it that an online shop would be deemed a permanent trading activity ?
I said the wording was for our group as in all Constitutions each group decides what they will and won't do, we as a group decided we would not be entering into trading. I believe when all this is over it will be found UKPR have done no wrong in the way they have raised funds. Just my opinion that's all. However with regard to point 3.4 within our constitution if the membership of the group deemed it appropiate and altered the wording to include permanent trading, then that too would be permissable proving such changes to the constitution were done in accordance with the constitution of the group and the main one is alterations to the said constitution should be undertaken at the groups Annual General Meeting.I hope that answers you query Robert. If you like I could forward you the full constitution for the group I am speaking about, you'd find it is a legal document and was drawn up with a professional employee of Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council.
ReplyDeleteFlakey... The Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council's Constitution and what that group decide amongst themselves to include in it... Has no relevance whatsoever to UKPR practices and I fail to see how you can possibly think it does!
ReplyDeleteSecondly, you say that all you care about is the birds that's why you're here defending UKPR, well this is all about their mistreatment of birds for their own purposes and ill gotten gain.
Seems you have gotten yourself a bit confused along the way Flakey...
The Constitution is not for BMBC, it is for a voluntary group. My response was in fact for Robert not you, it was to show how voluntary groups work within the law. As for being confused erm no I am not. I am here for the birds. I am convinced in my own mind that you are now playing games and nasty ones at that to steal a bird and hopefully two. Do the right thing and hand him back so he can go to his mate JJ.
ReplyDeleteDear Flakey... If you wish to post on this public blog then anyone is entilted to respond... Thats how it works!!
ReplyDeleteAfter speaking to an expert as will be outlined in a coming post... why would anyone in their right mind send a happy bird who has stopped plucking etc, to an unhappy bird?
Shouldn't it be the other way around.
You choose to ignore the facts surrounding Mylo being in Adele's care.
Selective hearing they call it!
When has doing what we believe to be right for a bird who has been placed in my care been a game or about stealing a bird.
As stated previously Flakey, you're a little confused about whats going on. I know its a lot to keep up with, all this writing over the past 2 weeks, but if you choose to take a position. Please get things straight in your mind and contemplate who you are supporting.
Flakey,
ReplyDeleteI have no need or desire to steal any bird, nor to engage in irrelevant squabbles with you.
Do you honestly think anyone would put themselves through almost three weeks of this, spending inordinate amounts of their valuable time... Simply to obtain a 'freebie'? Please don't judge everyone on some people's standards.
One thing I would ask of you is that rather than swallowing the UKPR propaganda, you perhaps speak to individuals whose opinion and integrity regarding parrot welfare YOU respect... Ask what THEY make of this situation?
Any news?
ReplyDeleteHow are these two birds?
Did the test results come back?
Mylo continues to thrive is a very happy, settled, little boy and has been enjoying the recent sunshine in our outside play aviary with the other macaws.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, we have no word on JJ as the UKPR blog has not been updated for quite some time and only those privy to the forum will know whether or not Adele has provided any further information regarding how she is faring :(
We can only hope that she is receiving the best love and care possible.
The test results have FINALLY come back and there will be an article posted shortly regarding this.