UKPR’s list of re-homed birds

The list: UKPR the Truth

Definition: Propaganda

This blog has not once stated that every single bird that has passed through the hands of UKPR has been abused. It would be ridiculous to state such a thing because it is plainly untrue.

UKPR as a concept for helping vulnerable rescue birds is a good thing, a hub where like minded people (bird lovers/rescuers) can come together and network with one another. A place where pet owners can look to offer a suitable home for the beloved pets they are now needing to re-home for whatever reason, and a place where rescued birds like from the RSPCA can be found new homes.

The concept is not in question, only other than the fact that because there are no laws governing bird rescues like UKPR, and they do not need to be registered by any Government body, any Tom, Dick or Harry can set one up today and then use this business concept for his/her own ends which is what is now in question with UKPR.

The list of re-homed birds listed looks quite impressive and it is good that these birds are now in loving long term homes, but if you look at the list more closely you will find that most of the birds listed are not UKPR property, meaning Vikky’s signature is not on their ownership form. They are birds were people have used the forum to network with another person to place their birds in new homes.

Take the example of my little green singing finch, which is not listed, and also each of the birds listed for Pauline who has stated on this blog that she only has 2 UKPR birds in her care.

If anyone knows the history behind any of the other birds then please can you confirm them in the interest of debate?

When myself and Pauline used the forum to network with one another to re-home my green singing finch, after Vikky had stolen it and told to give it back, she then subsequently said to me that if in the future UKPR members want to do this type of networking on the forum then they will have to pay for the privilege.

Why should people have to pay for the privilege of using the forum to network and help these poor birds? That is not in the small print of using the forum.

A donation is a donation, and a payment is a payment, there is a distinction!

On the list it also states about a pair of love birds being re-homed, please correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t Dawnie withdraw her request of re-homing these two birds immediately after witnessing the Mylo and JJ debacle? Maybe the situation was rectified so it would be good if someone could clarify this - Image

Also Pebbles the Cockatoo who finally ended up with Alan, was offered to two suitable fosters previously, but because the £150 payment/donation was not forthcoming for him, he was then given fre of charge to Alan, who works for UKPR – image

All long term forum users know, that if you have a disagreement with Vikky you are immediately removed from the forum and banned from entering again. Even worse if this does happen, if you have a UKPR (owned) bird in your foster care, then Vikky sends heavies around your house to seize her property back or starts legal action using donated money, even if that means disrupting the birds welfare by removing him/her from a loving environment.

(Donated money being used to protect Vikky - image )

Most UKPR fosters live in fear of this happening because they love the birds in their care, who become additions to their families.

The leader of the UKPR house (Vikky), has been ruling the forum members (rescuers/fosters/bird lovers) with an iron rod that is made up of human emotions and rescue birds.

Please leave a comment if you disagree.

Lastly Vikky points out that the money donated for these birds goes back into the rescue to pay for petrol, veterinary bills, and the micro chipping of the birds amongst other things - Image

We know that not to be the case, and here are just a few examples based on visible facts.

Jamie the UKPR driver who drives all over the country delivering and picking up birds for them has stated that he pays for all of the fuel costs himself – image

We also know through information that has been emailed that in most cases, if not all cases, all fuel costs are paid for by forum members out of their own pockets.

So no donated money that we know of goes to fuel.

Mylo who is currently in my care is an appendix I cites listed bird which means he is a protected species, he was signed over and into the hands of Vikky (UKPR). The first thing any reputable rescue organisation would have done, if they have donated money in their coffers for this exact purpose would be to have him immediately micro chipped. The donated money is also stated to go towards veterinary costs for the birds, which includes the Chlamydia testing.

Mylo: Profile

Mylo was placed into the emergency care home of Adele (UKPR), who after 6 months can no longer home the birds, and he still has not been micro-chipped or chlamydia tested!!!

Mylo and JJ’s foster profiles both state they come chipped and tested (also with a donated Pallace cage). As their new carer I was told that I would have to go to the vets and sort this out to which I agreed as most people who loves these birds would, but 6 months and UKPR not doing it??!!

So where does all that donated money go?

Adele herself, has told me she paid for everything concerning Mylo and JJ whilst they were in her care, and that she now has JJ booked into a vets.

I wonder who will be footing the bill, Adele or UKPR (Vikky)?

After the events of the past week, I am certain it will be Vikky but only because the spotlight now shines upon her so she has to now been seen to be doing the right thing regarding these birds.

In Vikky’s fostering agreement she also states that fosters ‘must’ and under no uncertain terms use her insurance company to insure the birds being signed into their care which begs the question;’Why’? Some might have the opinion of possible back handers???

I never paid a donation to UKPR for Mylo and JJ because they had nowhere else in the immediate short term for these hard to home Macaws there was no alternative but to send the birds to me, until such time as a fosterer (buyer) who would be willing to pay the donation could be found. Due to the fact that money was central to the possession of Mylo and JJ for UKPR, and Vikky was not getting any from me for them, in my opinion she decided to keep the Pallace cage which had been donated for them both. I am not that desperate to cause problems because I want or need a cage, and I have one for Mylo now anyway. My point as Mylo’s new carer which has led us into this position now, is that if this is a rescue that is being donated things for birds in UKPR care (Mylo in this instance) then those things donated should go to the birds in question for their welfare and well being. If not then you have to ask the question why not?

UKPR stated themselves that Mylo and JJ would be coming with a new cage, along with being chipped and tested of course.

There will be a post going up later today with information for all those people who have donated money to UKPR, and who they should be contacting at Trading Standards.

If you set yourself up as a business disguised as a rescue organisation appealing for money from he general public then you should have nothing to hide once the tax man comes knocking on your front door.

P.S when you look through Vikky’s list of re-homed birds do not be surprised if most of the birds that haven’t been sold have been homed through the networking of one member to another. The birds owned by Vikky all have price tags on their heads, and the e/c carers are only looking after them until they can be sold (donation received).