Mill Rescue

[Melp]

I think voting was due to start tonight Emma but if the thread isn't closed you can nominate them yes.

[Pingu]

well as I have just remembered to log on I wont start the poll untill tomorrow morning now so i guess its still open.

 

I know Helly has answered but just to itterate

 

yes maggie did know I was comming (its a 250 mile trip and would have been a major ballache had no one been there)

 

but she had a second unannounced visit the following day too from someone else (its up to them to id themselves) who came to pretty much the same conclusion. There has been at least one further follow up visit too that I am aware of.

 

I am not going to pretend that its a "dogs trust" type set up - it isnt. Its a small rescue using their own kennels (not part of a boarding kennels) but the kennels and the animals we saw were ok. As Di mentioned when we were leaving the sheep were recently shorn (within past couple of weeks), the cattle all had the appropriate tags, the goats were all clean, the pigs were... piglike and happy, this isnt something you can rustle up overnight (maggie had about 24 hours notice).

 

Yes it could be better.. but which rescue in a similar situation cant be? Maggie is making alterations as she becomes aware of them and as funds allow - you cant really ask more than that. Yes mistakes had been made in the past - Maggie admits that, and yes they are sad and regretable. but can ANY rescue say that they have never made a mistake, never had a dog die on them? People make mistakes.. thats life.. as long as they learn from those mistakes and are willing to learn. Its that skill that will make a good rescue (well that and a shitload of money). Maybe if more people offered to help and give the benfit of their advice Mill Rescue could realise its potential sooner and more animals could be helped.

 

I will end with this: "people in glass houses shouldnt chuck stones"

[biggsd]

yes maggie did know I was comming (its a 250 mile trip and would have been a major ballache had no one been there)

 

but she had a second unannounced visit the following day too from someone else (its up to them to id themselves) who came to pretty much the same conclusion. There has been at least one further follow up visit too that I am aware of.

 

 

This was myself and 2 friends one of these friends is a very respected kennel owner, dog behavourist and has been in rescue for some years now,now that they and myself have read this reprort we will be making know our findings here and on my site ,also a friend has offered to post it on Dog pages for us.

[Laurel n Hardy]

Well done

 

Would it be possible to nominate Mill Rescue for next month's help a rescue?

 

 

Thats what I was going to say too..

 

Whereabouts are Mill Rescue?, I just got back after a week away and trying to play catchup...

[murtle]

Thank you for making the effort to find out for yourselves

 

I have no idea of the issues that have gone on, but I like positive action so

 

Thank you

 

x x

[mum24dog]

"people in glass houses shouldnt chuck stones"

 

Yup. There are a few of the "squeaky clean" rescues who should be worried that the spotlight might fall on them if I am to believe some of the things I have been told.

However, I keep an open mind in those cases, just as I have in the case of MR and will continue to do.

If I don't know for certain, I say nowt for public consumption (and never rely on photos - seeing is not necessarily believing.)

Human error, conflict of personalities, unreasonable expectations, distortion of or incomplete "evidence" - just some of the many reasons why a misleading picture can be given.

 

Pam

[Ian]

I'm really not sure what I think of any of this

 

I am not and never have been part of any group whose stated intent was to shut Mill Rescue down. I can understand why offers of "help" from those quarters might not have been well well received. I have however read the numerous counts & allegations.

 

I said in another thread I would have liked to see a statement from Mill Rescue. There was a response that something which could end up in court was hardly likely to result in a response on an internet forum. I don't personally agree with that as the response could have simply said we deny all allegations and have consulted our solicitors.

 

I don't necessarily believe everything I've read - some of the financial suggestions were questionable and do appear to involve some glass houses - ie various rescues are not registered charities and some that are are in arrears with their returns - but nevertheless I've yet to see any denial that any of those dog related allegations are true & some of them involved very basic matters which most pet owners would be aware of - not something you would need years of experience to know or reasonably brush of as a mere mistake!

 

I therefore feel that some of you ought to make sure you have got a genuinely open mind, read both sides of the argument (or at least what is available) and make sure any past differences (that admittedly I know little if anything about) before going to the extreme of naming them "Rescue of the month" - whilst I appreciate it's not the intention it neverthess sounds dangerously like an endorsement to me.

 

In the absence of any denial of some of these failings that certainly can't be warranted!

[Ian]

I do however welcome the news that things are reported to be improving. It would be fair to say I've never been there myself, and as I said am not sure what I believe of the situation as a whole until I see something proven one way or another.

[snow]

Ian, as you say yourself in your post, you haven't spoken to Maggi, you haven't visited Mill Rescue, you haven't spoken to anyone at any of the organisations that have in fact visited & inspected Mill Rescue, you recognise that some of those people making claims do indeed reside in houses made of glass and that given the way this entire debacle was handled that Maggi was highly unlikely to respond to hostile offers of "help" or at the very least be incredibly suspicious of certain offers.

 

I on the other hand have indeed been in contact with Maggi on numerous occasions, I have additionally spoken directly with Dogs Trust, I have also spoken with Pingu constantly since this whole thing blew up I spoke to him on the day of his visit to MR and obviously many times since.

 

Maggi has been very cooperative with myself and with Refuge, she has answered every question we have put to her, and we have put many questions to her as the various allegations were made.

 

Frankly I cannot see any reason why her lack of a public statement should be seen in a negative light, surely it is enough that she has admitted she made mistakes in the past, has learned from them and is making improvements?

 

As for our sponsor scheme being an endorsement of a rescue - we make it very plain NONE of the rescues posting here or benefitting from the monthly scheme or any fundraisers held here are endorsed by Refuge, rescues that benefit from the sponsor scheme are nominated by and voted for by you the members, if people don't wish to support a particular rescue any particular month then they do not have to, it is purely a matter for the individual and they can choose to donate or not as they see fit.

[cycas]

I dunno, I can see there are some things that can't be apologised away.

 

On the other hand I can also see little point in the Refuge (or other organisation such at the Dogs Trust) sticking its head in the sand and pretending Mill Rescue doesn't exist. That's not going to stop MR operating, or improve their conditions, or fix any mistakes made in the past.

[GSDFan]

I've spent a few hours in Maggi's company a couple of times, although admittedly not since she began MR.

 

I would say that at the time I met her she had a lot to learn but that can equally well be said of most people. I don't believe that Maggi would ever intentionally behave in a way which would cause an animal to suffer nor do I believe she would be motivated by the desire to make money out of animals in her care.

 

I suppose I may have been taken in and simply be gullible, but that's unlikely since I tend to think the worst of people, not the best.

 

It may well be that dogs at MR are housed in less than ideal conditions, however, as the alternative for most of these dogs was being pts in the pound then I personally consider a few weeks in 'poor' accommodation to be preferable to certain death.

[Ian]

Frankly I cannot see any reason why her lack of a public statement should be seen in a negative light, surely it is enough that she has admitted she made mistakes in the past, has learned from them and is making improvements?

 

As for our sponsor scheme being an endorsement of a rescue - we make it very plain NONE of the rescues posting here or benefitting from the monthly scheme or any fundraisers held here are endorsed by Refuge, rescues that benefit from the sponsor scheme are nominated by and voted for by you the members, if people don't wish to support a particular rescue any particular month then they do not have to, it is purely a matter for the individual and they can choose to donate or not as they see fit.

 

 

 

Well not so long back on a different thread but a similar vein of a defamatory / libelous statement (which wasn't even so public) it was felt, apparently quite strongly by a number of people that a response was necessary in order to dispel any possibility of anyone believing it.

 

Other than for the nature of the wording of that statement I myself agreed at the time that a response was perfectly right and proper.

 

But now we seem to have an inconsistency. For me the best response if these accusations are claimed to be untrue would be a legal recourse. However I appreciate that may be financially inviable and would therefore feel that in light of the serious nature of those accusations a denial of any untue element was appropriate.

 

My own perception / guess if you like for what it's worth is that she is probably not the callous individual some have painted, more likely someone who had / has genuinely good intentions but has bitten off more than she could chew (this centre for example is a wonderful idea but in my opinion it's a total pipe dream for a rescue of that size unless somebody wins the lottery)

 

In the absence of either legal action or denials I find myself wondering, why would you not deny something that is a serious threat to your rescue? My own conclusion would be that some of these things, even if not exactly as reported probably did happen. (If anyone wants to prove me wrong I would be delighted to hear that)

 

There are some some mistakes in life which I would say that you do indeed learn from and move on. We all make them in some area of life or other. There are others which personally I don't consider so easily forgivable. Now you, like me, appear to have read those allegations. Perhaps not everyone here will have been able to do so. You appear to be happy to forgive anything you have learned. For me, it comes down to either they are untrue - in which case Maggie does indeed deserve support - OR they are true in which case I do not consider the alleged events to be mere mistakes to be forgotten or forgiven.

 

As for my comment on endorsement the Dogs trust and RSPCA would also say that they do not endorse other rescues, as was posted in their statement and yet it is claimed elsewhere (I have not seen the original advert myself) that an advert from Mill Rescue states they are "approved by" the Dogs Trust and RSPCA. It's my belief that a successful nomination as "Rescue of the month" could easily read in a similar vein to anyone unfamiliar with the forum.

 

You, and others are of course entitled to hold (and voice) your own opinions but I am equally entitled to mine.

[Helly]

can i just add that all the kennels were block built, concrete floored with concrete corridors... all larger than the minimum required by the model licence conditions which is the standard set for boarding kennels. Rescues are not governed by these conditions. All had a standard drainage system so that kennels can be cleaned and drained properly. If the kennels were not cleaned properly there would be a lingering odour that just cant be covered up with one good wash down. Ive trapsed round enough kennels and rescues to recognise this place was clean and well disinfected.

 

As i have said before, Maggi has not denied mistakes have been made but on viewing this place she is doing her best to rectify them and learn from them and i wholly agree with the Dogs Trust that now Mill should be getting help and advice to further improve the situation.

[Ian]

I dunno, I can see there are some things that can't be apologised away.

 

On the other hand I can also see little point in the Refuge (or other organisation such at the Dogs Trust) sticking its head in the sand and pretending Mill Rescue doesn't exist. That's not going to stop MR operating, or improve their conditions, or fix any mistakes made in the past.

 

 

Personally I don't have an agenda to stop anyone operating. At the moment none of these accusations have actually been proven. As I said above I'm pleased conditions are improving and lessons being learned. I'm not even saying that one day in the future they shouldn't be eligible for nomination but I just don't feel that an award of "Rescue of The month" could be in any way justified at this point in time.

 

Personally I wouldn't even want to support the board in a month where they were rescue of the month, let alone donate unless I saw some sign of denial of those claims

[merledogs]

They (Mill Rescue) are not answerable to us The proper authorities are involved and they are working with them to sort their problems. That's enough for me.