0

Julia de Cadenet holds a current Legal Certificate of Good Character and acts as the Voluntary Legal Advisor to a Charity

buddies4animals:

Mr Egan did not tweet, (please supply evidence of the tweet) as misleadingly described as, “the defamatory tweet by Peter Egan claiming she has been ” debarred””
If you are not registered to practice in the UK as a solicitor (lawyer) or as a barrister then you are not allowed to practice as either for money? Definition of debarred: exclude or prohibit (someone) officially from doing something.

Originally posted on Julia de Cadenet Official Blog:

In July 2010, Julia de Cadenet was Called to the Bar  in England at the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple. She holds a perfect record of Good Standing. The  blog written by Animal Buddy and Buddy for Animals and the defamatory tweet by Peter Egan claiming she has been ” debarred” is completely fabricated . It  part of a hate campaign and  the cyber bullying/ stalking Ms de Cadenet has been subject to for the last 10 months.

Julia de Cadenet is a dual qualified lawyer currently working in American Immigration . She acts as the voluntary CEO and Legal Advisor of the Charity World Protection for Dogs and Cats in the meat trade. This registered charity 1154524 campaigns to end the cruel  dog and cat meat trade.

View original

0

Cyber Trolls ” Animal Buddy” reported for on-going harassment and hate campaign

buddies4animals:

Ms De Cadenet is obviously frothing at the mouth in her rabid attack on individuals she is blaming for all of her misfortune. It would seem that she is on a fishing mission to identify who to ‘serve’ and with what. The list of people she blames for the travesty of events that surrounded her charity in 2013 seems to grow daily. She only mentions two of them here. Interesting to see who will be next? She is even attacking the police on her new twitter account https://twitter.com/JuliadeCadenet, ‘magically’ acquiring 3402 followers in less than a month after only 92 tweets. Apparently she regards herself as a ‘public figure’ and has designated her twitter profile as, ‘The Official Twitter Account of Julia de Cadenet’ and her Facebook page, ‘The Official Facebook Page of Julia de Cadenet’. Good grief is that all you have to do to become a celeb…just say that you are? On what basis exactly is Ms de Cadenet able to represent herself as a public figure?
Please read http://animalbuddy.org/ blogs about her charity. The blogs report events as they happened during 2013. From her attacks on ‘Animal Buddy’ it would seem that she hasn’t actually bothered to read them herself.

Originally posted on Julia de Cadenet Official Blog:

Soi Dog denounce the Blog Written by ” Animal Buddy” and confirm they did not give permission for their name to be attached to this defamatory article written by hate bloggers Karen Cole and Amber Donoghue.

 

The Blog Animal Buddy has been written by poison pen cyber trolls mother and daughter Amber Donoghue and Karen Cole. Both of whom have a history of running hate campaigns and cyber bullying. This matter has been reported to law enforcement.

Requests have been made to remove personal details and also inaccurate articles, neither Cole or Donoghue will comply.

Injunctive notices will be served and legal action will be taken .

Cole is some 65 years old living in the Dordogne France. She has chosen a legacy of hate and obsessive stalking. Donoghue whose full details will be revealed shortly( under subpoena), has abused her position as a person charities are supposed to…

View original 132 more words

2

Animal ‘Charity’ Dirty Tricks Campaign Part 3

Amended & updated 17th Oct 2013

To follow this blog you will need to read Part 1 & Part 2

You will have read at the end of Part 2 that, ‘Notodogmeat’ had given up pretending that their FB Page was hacked. In a shocking statement their CEO was blamed for threatening and defamatory posts made on their official Facebook Page. They reported that the CEO was intoxicated when she made the posts. These posts are reproduced in Part 2 and are predominantly directed at Mr Peter Egan, a much admired actor, public figure and well-known animal rights activist.  After that statement we waited for the other shoe to drop.  We didn’t have long to wait.

(click onto images to view)

NTDM-40Having made that quite incoherent threat to Ms de Cadenet, the admin now in control of the Facebook Page decided to invent an official investigative body called EAD. The post they made on their FB page is very long so we include these screen grabs to give you a flavour of how bizarre this post was.

NTDM-41 NTDM-42

This was disconcerting; had the inmates taken over the asylum? However, we did not at that time know who the inmates were. We did notice that there was certainly an attempt to sanitize Ms Brown, a co-founder and trustee of notodogmeat.

NTDM-47

If you wish to read the entire, practically incomprehensible post, you can view it here, you will need to click the image once it has loaded to enlarge it and read the text:

NTDM_250913_EADstatement

After this manic attempt to blacken the name of Ms de Cadenet, and/or suggest that she really did not exist at all (see section 9, it was incredibly confusing)  the official Facebook Page of NTDM was suddenly deactivated.

Just when we were beginning to hope that their illiterate rhetoric had caused them to spontaneously implode, we received news that ‘NTDM’ had returned to Facebook. It was puzzling to see that the Page we were now viewing had been stripped of its 6000+ ‘likes’ and had very little content. It became apparent that this was not a resurrection but a brand new Page The inmates appeared to have lost control of the old asylum  (Page currently deactivated) and Ms de Cadenet was now reclaiming the NTDM identity.

The new NTDM page opened a forum of comments. Needless to say the comments were often less than polite. Ms de Cadenet (if it was her) fielded the questions and comments until October 2nd when it was reported that “All questions and comments have now gone before our moderator and legal advisor Ms J de Cadenet, who has full authority to speak on behalf of NoToDogMeat and our charity.”

new_NTDM_PageHeader_081013

Capture2_NEW_N_T_D_M  Capture Moderation_julia

So who are the people in control of the new NTDM official Facebook Page? And who are the people who took control of the original NTDM official Facebook Page? Who is the person that Ms de Cadenet refers to when stating the new Page “replaces the pages stolen by a known criminal on 23rd September”?

new_NTDM_JCD_composite (1)

  Click the image once it has loaded to enlarge it and read the text

So there we have the current state of play. Sadly still more questions rather than answers.

On the basis that absolutely everything surrounding NTDM appears to be suspect, we cannot discount that this could be a double bluff campaign. The scenario, currently presented, is that the new NTDM official FB page is de Cadenet, Merrill & Hughes, and that the old FB page was commandeered by Brown & ‘Craash Beck’ with the help of a previously unidentified interloper. It appears that there is now fierce competition for domination of NTDM. Such intensity for control of the NTDM branding saw a small FB page reported for using the words ‘NoToDogMeat’ in its banner image. The little known FB page this happened to was purely set up to counteract NTDM re-entering the Australian FB arena.  The images attached refer to the claimed ‘intellectual property rights’. Make of that what you will.
NTDM AUSTRALIA removed  image_copyright
CaptureFB COPYRIGHT

IF the current revelations are to be believed, there are now two clearly defined opposing sides competing for control of NTDM, with the ‘interloper’ accused of being directly involved in sabotaging the original official FB NTDM Page. Was the ‘interloper’ the person deployed to ‘hack’ as per Brown’s recent blog  (second screen shot on that page)? Is this a falling out of conspirators or is someone manipulating NTDM in the shadows, hidden behind Brown & ‘Craash Beck’ of the Facebook Page ‘Don’t Let Them Eat Me’  ?

NTDM designate ‘NoToDogMeat’ as the ‘acronym’ for The World Protection of Dogs and Cats in the Meat Trade in their application for NGO consultative status. We do not know at this point if their application will prove successful?

CaptureNTDM Status3

CaptureNTDM Status2

CaptureNTDM Status

Ms de Cadenet and Mr Merrill, as appointed officers of this company, are surely responsible for the legal and charitable status reports previously supplied to their supporters and donors. Ms Brown was appointed as a director of this company on the 10 Aug 2013 and only served just over a month as an officer until 20 Sep 2013. One thing is certain, Ms de Cadenet & Mr Merrill are the two people accountable for the management of the charitable funds raised.

NTDM_240913_CharityPaymentsWetnose

We have absolutely no idea what the above screen shot of donations refers to, certainly not to any money passing through the coffers of The World Protection For Dogs And Cats In The Meat Trade (WPDCMT). Why NTDM used donation details from the Animal Aid ‘Umbrella’ organisation Wetnose beggars belief. We hear that WPDCMT are awaiting confirmation of their recent application for UK Charities Commission registration so that they can apply for Gift Aid. With their own funds seemingly in chaos it is very concerning that WPDCMT, ‘Umbrella’ for NTDM, may then invite smaller animal charities to allow them to collect and allocate donations on their behalf. The attraction for charities too small to be able to register as a charity and thus claim Gift Aid status is that the umbrella charity can claim Gift Aid on their behalf for a fee of usually 4%. The trustees of an umbrella charity have ultimate control of the funds received to decide whether donations received should go to specified charities. If they decide that the charity specified as the beneficiary by the donor is a credible charity they will claim Gift Aid on the donation and pass the donation plus the Gift Aid to the donor’s chosen charity (less an agreed administration fee). Worth noting that the umbrella organisation will also receive interest on the holding funds. This scheme is a ‘win win’ concept to maximize the impact of received donations since both the umbrella organisation and the small charities are collecting money for helping animals. Where it can go horribly wrong is if the umbrella organisation is untrustworthy or incompetent. It is important to state that Wetnose is a much respected and highly endorsed UK organisation raising awareness as well as money for voiceless friends. We sincerely hope, in light of recent chaotic events surrounding WPDCMT, that they will be prevented from extending their ‘umbrella’ to offer shelter to any but their very own NTDM.

We are only able to report information as it is made available to us in the public domain. In the spirit of being even-handed we also refer you to Michele Brown’s recent statement on her website: http://chiffonriver.com/?p=1676 

CaptureWPDCMT04042014

WPDCMT ( working name seen in the screenshot) was formally registered as a charity with the UK Charities Commission on 8th November 2013. The articles of the limited liability UK company were amended on 5th November 2013 in order to obtain charitable status for tax purposes.

Finally we report that at this time Mr. Peter Egan has not received a public apology for the scurrilous comments directed at him on both Facebook and Twitter under the name of NoToDogMeat.

You can follow us on Twitter and post any comments to our Facebook Page

We do not sell merchandise or ask for donations. We ask that you join us to monitor those who may be exploiting unwary Animal Buddies.

5

Animal ‘Charity’ Dirty Tricks Campaign Part 2

UPDATED 23 September 2013:  For latest news scroll to bottom of this blog.

Click on images to magnify

You will recall that we reported that NTDM, bloated by their triumphant FB vendetta against their critics, decided to launch a Twitter attack on Peter Egan @PeterEgan6 , a much respected public figure in the UK. Peter Egan is a tireless animal welfare activist and the ambassador for Animals Asia. Why did NTDM launch an attack on Peter Egan? Because he said that he did not support them. Animal ‘Charity’ Dirty Tricks Campaign

Many of us watched with open mouths as the numbers of twitter followers of  @notodogmeat shot up in less than 12 hours from 2k to 7k. Is it possible that they purchased a 5000 twitter followers package? Surely an animal charity wouldn’t misuse donations from their supporters in such a ridiculous fashion? Interesting to note that these thousands of new followers seemed to have nothing to do with animals in their profile. We certainly didn’t see them tweeting in support of NTDM.

NTDM, in a hissy fit, decided to carry their obnoxious campaign against their critics back to their Facebook page.

NTDM post1

Odin Campbell is/was a fake Facebook ID used to troll and frighten critics of NTDM. A very nasty persona indeed who uses his military background in the same threatening way as Mr H. the ‘NTDM campaign manager’ used his police background in FB comments.

Below are the other, now deleted, NTDM Facebook posts from yesterday. Perhaps the celebrated ‘pro bono’ unregistered ‘Barrister’ CEO of NTDM will need to dust off her law books.

NTDM post2 NTDM post3

NTDM post4

NTDM post5

This kind of attack is commonly used by NTDM. They usually complain that they have been hacked or try to blame a nameless volunteer. Well their Twitter account must have been hacked at the same time? They obviously like the ‘ brown envelope’ reference too much to cover their tracks well enough.

CaptureBrown envelope

We have noticed recently that this well know FB infamous personality has been vigorously defending NTDM, seems he is friendly with Mr H the campaign manager for NTDM and owner of a Philippine rescue. Some friends an animal ‘charity’ is probably better off not having. Unless of course, you need to intimidate critics.

Hughes and IARF

On a final note the two women co-founders of NTDM are no slouches themselves when tweeting.

JdC Thaigirls

Tweet from Chiffon

Update September 22 2013

Just in….. NTDM defend their appalling ‘Facebook Page’ attack on Mr Peter Egan and their threat to set an ex SAS thug onto critics.

CapturePeter denial_hackers NTDM NOTE_22092013

As of the 22 September 2013, and following reactions to this post, the official Facebook Page of Notodogmeat has been disabled. Their twitter account was re-launched today with a thumping 2k loss of followers in spite of a package of 5k recently added . The closure of the FB page may be temporary for ‘house cleaning’ purposes?

CaptureNTDM TWITTERPAGE2 22092013Who are the Admin responsible for the infamous recent posts on the official Notodogmeat FB page? We are no closer to discovering the answer to that question. NTDM management seem uncertain themselves? The UK police are usually indifferent to social media threats of violence and stalking so we are not optimistic about the complaint lodged with them. We do know that this is the person who tweets for them.

CaptureSallydenies FB CaptureSally tweets4NTDM

We do know that this person has been part of the management team since the beginning. Observers have believed that she and Ms Brown, with the campaign manager Mr H who posts periodically under his own name,  have admin roles on the official Facebook Page. This screen shot , of an interesting request to the Thailand NTDM Chapter, has just been posted on Twitter. NTDM headquarters requested that Sally is immediately appointed as joint admin and that the Thai Chapter place an order for T Shirts in order to be officially endorsed.

Sally admin on Thai NTDM

Before giving your money to the ‘animal charities’ which proliferate the pages of Facebook, perhaps the question to ask yourselves is: would you buy a used car from these people?  Facebook is not in the least interested in monitoring their social media pages. Complaints to FB fall on deaf ears;  the reverse is true…complainants with small FB audiences often find themselves very much at the mercy of bigger Pages. The FB moderators seem to have an inexplicable agenda which has nothing to do with protecting the public from nefarious people who will stop at nothing to part us from our money.

Update 23 September 2013 NTDM re-activates their official Facebook Page.

DID SHE FALL ON HER SWORD OR WAS SHE STABBED IN THE BACK?

Notodogmeat have given up pretending that their FB Page was hacked. In a shocking statement this morning, their CEO is blamed for the threatening and defamatory posts made on their official Facebook Page. They report that she was intoxicated. The statement appears to have been made by somebody to whom English is a second language. There is reference to her Korean counterpart taking control. Interesting, we had no idea that there was a Korean counterpart in the management team of Notodogmeat. Equally interesting, is that they seem to be attempting to ‘sanitize’ their self proclaimed Campaign Manager Mr H by claiming that the CEO, Ms J de C, was the Campaign Manager. The good news is that they state they are no longer a Charity and will not in future ask for donations. There is no word yet on the merchandising side of the organization. For those without a Facebook account we will keep you posted.

Capture1a

00000001

Capture5

USA you may be pleased to know that Notodogmeat are still active on:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Notodogmeat-USA/148241555372243

where you will be able to donate or buy merchandise; IF you are so inclined.

You can follow us on https://twitter.com/AnimalBuddyOrg

We do not sell merchandise or ask for donations. We ask that you join us to monitor those who may be exploiting unwary Animal Buddies.

5

All Singing All Dancing Animal Charity Scam? Chapter 2

This new organisation hit the ground running in May 2013. It wants our financial support. We are entitled to ask questions. There is no regulatory body we can ask.

Doubts about the veracity of this new organisation grew when questions about their charitable status remained unanswered. Their goals were overly enthusiastic and their promises unrealistic.  In describing their charity,  information on their status was smothered in rhetoric. An ID number, purporting to be their charity number, was shown in the about section on Facebook and then deleted from the description. It reappeared some time later but as the number of  a UK limited liability company registration. We discovered that this number was for THE WORLD PROTECTION FOR DOGS AND CATS IN THE MEAT TRADE. This recently incorporated company is described as the ‘umbrella’ of NTDM. Donations made through PayPal go to this company.  This means that the company is registered for tax purposes and it protects the owners from liability.  The officers of the company are required to keep day-to-day financial records and to submit accounts for tax purposes annually. Providing they annually declare income and expenditure and duly submit all documents as required under UK law for incorporated companies they are behaving correctly. That does not mean that they cannot spend their income on jetting all over the world and staying in fancy hotels if they so decide. That does not mean that they need to spend a brass farthing on saving cats and dogs. They are not required to send money to help shelters. They now describe themselves predominantly as lobbyists, and as such scorn surprise by donors that their animal rescue contribution is minimal. As their campaign manager says himself, they can do what they want with your money,  “.. BUT LET THIS BE LOUD AND CLEAR FOLKS. You are not donating so YOU decide where our charity spends the money. You are donating so YOU get credit in the bank to decide which dogs live and which dogs dies.” He should know since the money collected by the Thai chapter of NTDM for saving dogs in S Korea  was sent to him in the Philippines, but more of that later!

Once we had established the criteria of the ‘umbrella’ company, we searched in vain for their registration with the UK Charities Commission. We ignored the various references they make to being registered under a French law for associations. They describe it incorrectly as an EU law. Reports of donations given indicated that NTDM had received in excess of the £5000 ceiling exoneration from being required to register with the Charity Commission.  One would expect that a charity asking for peoples money would lay out their stall  for all to see; that questions either on FB or by email would be answered politely and concisely.  The information here we had to find for ourselves, it should not have to be that difficult.

In normal circumstances we might have excused their prevarication, misleading statements and downright rudeness, believing that they were just a bunch of amateurs finding their feet.  What alarmed us  about their apparent incompetence was that they were being led by a Barrister.  It seemed truly incomprehensible that a UK Barrister would not appreciate the need for complete transparency when heading a charity.  We asked pertinent questions on Facebook which gave them yet another opportunity to respond calmly and clearly. Instead they reacted aggressively. Some of us were branded hate mongers. Pages were trolled and were constantly reported to FB for mentioning their name.

CaptureFOR HANDS1 CaptureSlander

People were trapped into responding to comments made by fake FB identities only to be reported and put into FB ‘jail’ for days. It became very nasty indeed.

By the end of June 2013 the disillusioned Sidney and Melbourne activist chapters of NTDM withdrew their support.  Some of these members, because they could get no satisfactory discourse with the NTDM founders, expressed their dissatisfaction on FB.

OZ2    OZ1

AUSTRALIAN NTDM SUPPORTERS ARE ANGRY THAT NTDM STILL USING THEIR PHOTOS ON FACEBOOK

While questions were being asked on FB about the charitable status of NTDM, their enthusiastic Australian supporters in Sidney & Melbourne were having problems.  Receipts were not forthcoming, questions were not answered, people who asked questions on the official FB page were being blocked and their comments deleted.  Several of them were holding batches of signed petition, which seemed of no interest at all to NTDM.  It was hard work collecting the signatures, and very disappointing that NTDM were only interested in photos of  supporters protesting on the streets wearing their Logo. One person recently reported to still trying to find a home for 1200 signatures gathered.  The Sidney and Melbourne chapters became increasingly uncomfortable with the posts on the NTDM page.

Although by this time dubious, a Sidney woman, who had made substantial donations, nevertheless decided to help organise the Sidney Australia protest against the Yulin dog eating festival under the NTDM banner. The posters this group of street protesters used, paid for themselves, also promoted Du Yufeng of Bo Ai Animal Protection Centre in China. Du is a well known activist and animal rescuer in China. She and her group were campaigning at the Yulin festival, these grass-roots activists bravely campaigned before and during the festival. The decision by the Sidney chapter to include material promoting Du and her group, when protesting, was not received kindly by the CEO of NTDM. Which may be why NTDM issued a misleading statement concerning Du Yufeng.  The response from ‘Hand in Hand with Asia’s Animal Activists’, refuting the misleading statement after being in direct contact with Du, is shown in this capture. Click on the captures to magnify.

CaptureDU

Towards the end of July 2013 word was received that the Thailand chapter of NTDM had withdrawn their support and were demanding the return of the 2,200 US dollars raised by them for the Thailand EVENT. Two members from the Thai chapter, arranged to fly to S. Korea to join Ms Brown, the film maker/journalist and co-founder of NTDM. On arrival in Seoul, and In spite of waiting all day, they were refused a meeting. They had taken with them filming equipment to record, for the Thai chapter members, Ms Brown’s visit to S.Korea; to show their fellow donors how their donations were being spent on saving dogs from the dog meat trade in S.Korea. They had with them additional funds to help with the rescue of dogs from Moran Market. These funds were finally donated by them to CARE, the dog rescue organisation they visited in Seoul.

Left stranded in Seoul, the representatives from the Thai Chapter risked a visit to the notorious Moran Market, and a less dangerous market, to bring back remarkable footage of their experience.  Money had been donated on a fundraiser to send Ms Brown to film at the Moran market.  The video made by Ms Brown caused a minor uproar on Facebook; it was hugely disappointing, whereas the video brought back by the self funded Thai Chapter representatives is excellent. Doubts were expressed as to the authenticity of the ‘rescue’ of two dogs by Ms Brown. Many believe that Ms Brown visited another, less dangerous market, to buy from a pet dog vendor. The Thai  video seems to support this theory, the reaction to them when they tried to buy a meat dog at the Moran Market was very dramatic. Ms Brown on the other hand spent most of the video choosing two out of four dogs, brought to her in a very clean cage by an affable vendor. She petted and stroked the dogs, just as a potential purchaser of a companion animal does and not as somebody buying  to cook it!

 

3

Animal ‘Charity’ Dirty Tricks Campaign Part 1

NTDM and their acolytes, to silence their critics, reported them to FB as fake identities. To verify their identities, and to have their accounts reinstated, FB requested private documents as proof of identity. Some of us have refused to do so, since we do not believe that FB should be trusted with such personal information. Others have responded to FB onerous demands but still have not had their accounts reinstated? Animal welfare pages have been stranded since their admin are banned from access. Valuable work on FB for suffering animals has ground to a halt. The people who launched this attack have many false identities but we were all taken down too quickly to protect ourselves from them. We have seen FB comments chortling about their success in removing their critics from FB.
NTDM, bloated by their triumphant FB vendetta,  then decided to launch a Twitter attack on Peter Egan, a much respected public figure in the UK, a tireless animal welfare activist and the ambassador for Animals Asia. Why did they launch an attack on Peter Egan? Because he said that he did not support them. CapturePeterEgan

Peter was impelled to make this statement because NTDM have recently been using an old photo of him on their Facebook page and were heralding him as a supporter.

In a spiteful attempt to smear his reputation NTDM attacked him by erroneously suggesting that he is linked to an individual who had posted a derogatory comment on Facebook.

Capture5

Peter Egan has a big following of supporters on Twitter.  They are appalled at this attempt to smear his reputation. People, who up until now had not even known about NTDM, tweeted in protest. Until this much-loved and respected man was attacked in this way by NTDM on Twitter, they had no idea of the depths to which this ‘animal charity’ will sink to cover their traces.  Peter, being the dignified man he is, responded to this vicious attack, He made a simple request.

Capture6

When no response was forthcoming, on what had now become a public forum, he asked another simple question. “Who is their CEO and who are their trustees?”

Capture7

NTDM refused to answer.

If you would like to read about this on Twitter, please follow the link: https://twitter.com/PeterEgan6

3

All Singing All Dancing Animal Charity Scam? Chapter 1

Image

This sounded amazing. We couldn’t wait to join. Companion animal lovers shelled out their money in enthusiastic support. Tshirts, hoodies and kit was ordered and publicity material was downloaded from the ‘Notodogmeat’ website. Supporters cheerfully paid for the cost of printing, laminating etc. and travelling to protest and raise money. Wow they, these illustrious leaders, actually had their feet in the UK House of Commons. They were endorsed by the ‘International Coalition Against the Cat and Dog Meat Trade’, none of us knew who this important organisation was but it certainly read well. They even had their own, ‘pro bono’ lawyer ( or did they say lawyers)  running the show? It was a bit confusing, but never mind, we were later told that they were taking their movie made by a, ‘leading investigative journalist’ to Cannes  on 18th May 2013. Now that was exciting. We imagined celebs & movie stars coming out in support when viewing this movie accepted at the Cannes film festival,. We were told that ‘Notodogmeat’ was founded by a Julia de Cadenet and Michele Brown (the ‘leading investigative journalist’).

Image Image

It was very disquieting to find the above information on Google about Julia de Cadenet! We began to wonder if a person who allegedly attempted to steal an intellectual property could be trusted with donors hard earned cash. Ms de Cadenet, we discovered, was not only the co- founder of, ‘Notodogmeat’  she was also their much quoted, ‘award winning pro bono lawyer’.

Image

Even more intriguing was that Ms de Cadenet  describes herself as a Barrister. Very difficult to believe that a Barrister would risk their professional status by trying to steal an intellectual property? There it is though.. the accusation is still on the web, with no injunction apparently served to remove the extremely damaging accusation. Mentions of Julia as a Barrister have for the most part recently disappeared.  Although she describes herself as such on the UK petition she created. Image

And then again when registering as a director of a UK incorporated CompanyImage

Strangely when registering, at approximately the same time, as director of, ‘The World Protection For Dogs And Cats In The Meat Trade’ Julia changes not only her profession (& alters her name) but also her birth-date by many years. Will the real Julia de Cadenet please stand up. By the way, the address shown on both these screen shots are of a virtual office and NOT of her private address or place of work.

Image

Attempted plagiarism, lying on an official government document, the plot thickened. As the figurehead of, ‘Notodogmeat’ this person was gathering more and more FB supporters willing and eager to supply her with money. Misleading posts went up on the official FB page, only to be quickly removed when queried too closely. It became clear that, ‘Notodogmeat’ had more than Ms Brown & Ms de Cadenet as co-founders. Mr David Merrill is a fellow officer in the UK registered company, ‘The World Protection For Dogs And Cats In The Meat Trade’, the so called ‘umbrella’ for Notodogmeat. We breach no privacy in stating that since that information is freely available on the site http://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk . Mr John Hughes is their self-acknowledged Campaign Manager, and has been so since ‘Notodogmeat’ hit the ground running in March 2013. The much earlier quoted, ‘International Coalition Against the Cat and Dog Meat Trade’ never did exist.

The above information, as it emerged, became very interesting to a number of us. What really alarmed us was when we began to see snide, disparaging remarks made by, ‘Notodogmeat’ leaders and their acolytes. These remarks were directed at discrediting, Soi Dog Foundation, Animals Asia, HSI and the FaceBook Page, ‘Hand in Hand with Asia’s Animal Activists’; AND by inference any other organisation fighting against dogs & cats for human consumption! Soi Dog Foundation seems to be a pet

hate of theirs. This is one Imageof them with a fake FB account pretending to be John Dalley of Soi Dog!

The numbers grew of people recognising that something was very wrong with this animal ‘charity’. Credible animal charities distanced themselves and groups of FB members began to investigate further. Donors began to complain that they had been ignored when requesting receipts. Supporters reported that ‘Notodogmeat’ were indifferent to the hard copy petitions they had so tirelessly collected. Questions were raised about their true charitable status and about where donations were going. That is when the, ‘dirty tricks against critics’ campaign started.

Shockingly two notorious, ‘bad lads’ (and their faithful acolytes) of FB animal charity scams, crawled out of their troll caverns to attack the critics of, ‘Notodogmeat’. Were they always part of, ‘Notodogmeat’? Is  ‘Notodogmeat’ in fact one of their many scams? If not, why on earth would they bother to attack so viciously on behalf of an organisation in which they have no financial interest?

In Chapter 2 we will report further on concerns about ‘Notodogmeat’.

0

BOKDAYS Film Exposed – a Cautionary Tale

buddies4animals:

As the author of this blog remarks, “..So when you’re looking to get involved with a legitimate animal welfare organization, make sure to do your homework about them and research them thoroughly. There are a lot of people out there who aren’t what they seem.” Ex-trustee and ex-director of a UK animal charity exposes how she was duped by Mme CEO, who also (according to this account of events) set about to deliberately dupe others. Some background to the, now registered, animal charity can be found on http://animalbuddy.org/2013/09/12/all-singing-all-dancing-animal-charity-scam-chapter-1/

Originally posted on Speak Up For The Voiceless:

Bokdays 16

BOKDAYS Film Exposed – a Cautionary Tale

My name is Michele Brown and I am an animal welfare activist, rescuer and frontline fighter against the dog and cat meat trade in Asia and Africa. In my 30 years as a first-response rescuer I have witnessed my fair share of animal cruelty, but nothing compares to the unspeakable brutality inflicted upon companion animals in dog and cat-eating countries. This is why I have made it my life’s mission to stop this gruesome trade by exposing it for what it is – heinous animal cruelty.

To help raise public awareness about this pressing issue, I recently produced a short, controversial film titled:BOKDAYS, Hidden In the Land Of Morning Calm, which focuses on the dog and cat meat trade in South Korea. It was made in early 2013 with the intention of premiering it at Cannes Film Festival in May

View original 3,797 more words

0

Ten tips to help identify whether social networking groups, pages or individuals posting are legitimate and really animal welfare focused.

buddies4animals:

Recently, thanks to alerts fom vigilant observers, caught out some fundraising scammers using an old image from the net. Mind you $800 raised before they cut and ran.

Originally posted on viewfromthemalvernhills:

In a previous blog http://bronwizview.wordpress.com/2014/01/01/animal-welfare-hoaxing-the-role-of-social-media-and-the-impacts-on-those-involved/ I described a recent animal welfare scam. Hoaxes such as this one are worryingly common.

The following ten tips mean that some time and a little detective work is required but in the long run it may prevent even more of your time being wasted, as well as energy, emotions and even money, on what are false claims, scams and hoaxes.

I would suggest that we all have a responsibility that, before sharing posts and information on social media sites, we check what we are distributing is accurate, true and authentic.  If we do not take control of what we share we, at the very least, cause annoyance and concern to our friends and acquaintances.  At the worst the welfare agencies, who are already overwhelmed with cases and reports, can spend significant time and energy responding to high levels of calls and reports which takes…

View original 461 more words

0

Best Petitions To Sign: Ban Bestiality…You Can Help!!

buddies4animals:

Bestiality, sex between humans and animals, is an issue most people don’t even want to be informed about. Because the imagery is so utterly obscene the general public are all too ready to believe that this is rare aberrant behavior. Unfortunately the situation in Denmark, where bestiality brothels are perfectly legal, demonstrates quite clearly that bestiality, is in fact, a lucrative business. Bestiality pornography involving; pain, stress, fear, injury and sometimes death of animals, will be an increasing problem while the EU Commission takes its own sweet time in legislating against this deplorable exploitation of animals. Make no mistake, pornography of this kind of perversion is not ‘replacing’ child pornography it is just a cynical addition to a business where big profits are made from drawing younger and younger spectators into the insidious dark underworld of deviant behavior.

Originally posted on STOP ANIMAL ABUSE:

“I first published the article on bestiality back in July, it didn’t really get any interest…until now…with the interest shown on Twitter…please bear with me, I’m not at my best & in a lot of pain…but so many of you want answers…so I have posted the best of what I know…apologies if some are repeated sites etc.”

“If there is only one thing you take from this…please read the very last postA Message from an Angel”

“Petitions may be repeated, but it won’t do any harm to click & make sure you signed them. I’m glad people are listening & seeing it for what it is…Sadistic Neanderthals…Raping sentient beings, without consent. In a court of law, rape is considered rape if either party did not consent!!! Animals can’t bloody speak…so how are they supposed to consent?”

“We have all seen a dog at some point hump a cushion or someone’s leg…

View original 3,268 more words

0

Welcome to our blog

buddies4animals:

It seems that even though NTDM plead they are under new management this organisation is still behaving badly?

Originally posted on OpExposeNTDM:

This blog has been started because a very good friend of ours (and animal advocate) has been at the receiving end of cyberbullying.

Avid animal rights campaigner https://twitter.com/allanimalrights and their team wanted to help campaign against the Dog Meat Trade, so a sub account was created to solely focus on this.  No Dog Meat was born…

Unbeknown to them, a Twitter account already existed with a very similar name:  NoToDogMeat (which I will refer to as NTDM)

For ease, I will refer to All Animal Rights as AAR.

What followed was a torrent of abuse via Direct Message from NTDM to AAR and to the No Dog Meat twitter account.  This went on for hours one evening, and it was quickly apparent that the person at the helm of the NTDM empire was somewhat unhinged.

Very quickly, a Facebook page was opened with the obvious intent of releasing…

View original 131 more words

0

Animal Welfare Hoaxing – the role of social media and the impacts on those involved

buddies4animals:

The issues surrounding unregulated fund-raising on social media are complicated and not simple to address. We appreciate that in certain situations, such as wildly fluctuating income, registering as a charity may not be feasible. In the UK, for example, to register with the UK Charities Commission a platform of £5000 p.a. in received donations needs to be attained.. However, it does need to be accepted by unregistered charities and individuals fund-raising, due to many scams feeding off the backs of animal lovers, that suspicions are easily aroused and the onus falls on them to be completely transparent in their dealings with the public. Many social media fund-raiser donations are paid via PayPal where there is no evidence of the amounts raised and absolutely no accountability if running totals are not published by the people asking for money. Surely the first duty to donors is to publish these figures frequently on fund-raising FB pages with evidence of expenditure? When people asking for donations choose to ignore good and courteous practice it is impossible to discern if it is because of gross arrogance, laziness or downright attempts to con.

Originally posted on viewfromthemalvernhills:

During the Christmas period I have had more time to scan various forms of social media for some of the things that interest me, including animal welfare. Over the past week, I have watched as a completely bizarre situation has played out which has demonstrated, not only the power of social media, but the risks of this power, especially when it is combined with emotive subjects such as animals being at risk of harm and ill treatment.

Being interestedi in animals and their impact on human mental health, including animal hoarding and rescuing I am concerned that a new abuse of both animals and people concerned for their welfare is developing through the form of social media.

One social media animal welfare hoax

Before Christmas a new page suddenly appeared on Facebook for a group purporting to be involved in reuniting lost equines and their owners. The focus quickly changed…

View original 1,906 more words

1

Doubts expressed in the public interest?

I tried to follow a recent radio blog but gave up in disgust when I realised that the two presenters, and a subsequent third helper, were falling over themselves to make sure that their female guest was not asked any embarrassing or pertinent questions about the past performance of her animal charity organisation. This was not reporting, it was showcasing, so I downloaded it to listen to it in full when I had a stronger stomach. In her introduction, the presenter of the show was talking about somebody trying to hack her credit card facility, I had no idea that people had to pay to listen to amateur radio? Then she called her show ‘a business’? From the week before I thought it was just a personal indulgence to attack and vilify people on a public forum. It was a tough two hours but I managed to grit my teeth and I listened until the bitter end. There were few surprises but a lot of misleading nonsense was spouted. The accusations directed towards their chosen targets of animosity became very confusing since they were prevented from naming those targets. It was a lot easier to follow the show from the week before when they recklessly and slanderously named names. Which accusation was directed at which person blurred into an homogeneous mess of ‘they’ and ‘them’. I am not sure now whether they are suggesting that we sent hate mail and/or threats , or if they are referring to others? Are they suggesting that we attempted to hack their account? Our computers and phone records will of course be available at any time to those in authority who wish to pursue this matter. We could hardly refuse. And yes we do know that we cannot hide anything from a cyber team of experts.

In the last month I, and my fellow admin of a FB page, have pretty much sat back and let accusations and lies, thrown at us by the two presenters of this radio blog, fall about our ears like confetti. We have also been vilified by them on written blogs and FB and Twitter attacks. Our silence instead of placating provoked further abuse. We decided to mildly retaliate in an effort to encourage them to get it out of their system. Frankly I was surprised that they haven’t tried to implicate us in the LAG affair as well. They certainly have said that we are involved with the intruder who, they say, stole the original NTDM FB page. Not so, we have had no contact from this individual.

Their guest speaker on the current radio blog joined in the fun. I would point out to her that I have the two disgruntled emails from me to NTDM customer services and I challenge her to produce any other than my second and final email. My first was a complaint that they were unfairly charging too much to euro account holders for their merchandise. I admit that I was very abrupt in my complaint, but hey who in retail doesn’t have to deal with cross customers? My complaint was valid and they could have simply said that they would look into it. My second email, was an angry retort to what I perceived to have been a sarcastic reply from them. It was a complaint not a threat. I ask that the guest produces an email from me that shows that I issued a threat of the kind that she describes.

Strangely that would have been the end of the matter if I hadn’t been reading, the week before my customer complaint, blogs from the very presenters of this current radio blog. The blogs were about FB scam charities. I had also listened to a radio blog by somebody called Barbie about the LAG affair where advice was given on checking out FB animal charities before endorsing them or donating. I had at that time opened a FB community page and had promoted NTDM on that page. In fact the post is still there.

It was a quiet week end in April, or maybe early May, so I thought of the advice and did a little checking on NTDM to satisfy myself that I wasn’t wrong in promoting their organisation. Because of the unpleasantness of correspondence I decided not to buy a hoodie, but I still liked the concept of the campaign and probably when I had calmed down would have donated. A donation is different to a purchase because the amount is a personal choice and makes more money available to be spent on the animals. I believed that this organisation was run by well intentioned amateurs with a great idea but little experience in how to deal with the public.

By the end of that weekend in April or May I was worried. Things didn’t seem as they should be at all. In the normal course of events I would have emailed the organisation with my questions and doubts. Once bitten twice shy, emailing didn’t seem like a good idea. So I asked the questions, any potential supporter has a right to ask of a new animal charity, on their page and later on my community page. My comments on their page were quickly removed. The responses were prevarication or aggressive. One thing led to another and I was banned from their page.

I have had a FB personal page for a few years, rarely visited FB and was a complete novice. I started the community page, with help from my daughter, to promote a pledge I had recently created to ask Switzerland to outlaw the eating of cats and dogs. At that time I had no idea about screen grabs, or how people could shut critics up on FB. I thought that NTDM would respond with a statement clarifying the inconsistencies in their rhetoric; explain simply their charitable status and hopefully realise that a lot of what they were saying often didn’t make sense. I simply could not understand how an organisation co-founded by a barrister could be so badly run. That was my problem. If the co-founder was indeed a lawyer/barrister, surely she, more than most, would know that when asking for money clear explanation of charitable status and complete transparency was vital. If she wasn’t a lawyer/ barrister then why would they say she was? The rest is history. http://animalbuddy.org/2013/10/08/animal-charity-dirty-tricks-campaign-part-3/

We didn’t cause their organisation to fall apart at the seams, they did it all by themselves. At the time of the original FB page being deactivated they had close to 7k likes so we obviously hadn’t impacted on their ability to raise money. The CEO has admitted that they got it badly wrong, that they have only recently sought advice on how to handle money? She says that the dirty tricks campaign waged against people who objected to how they conducted themselves was nothing to do with her, but we are still suffering from them. Since the FB fiasco of vile attacks on Peter Egan we have received over 2000 screen shots and information collated by other observers of NTDM.

The two presenters of this current radio blog have themselves written extremely aggressively about NTDM; far more aggressively than we ever have or would write. No matter how many times I told them that they should not accuse NTDM of fraud they would not listen. I explained to them that the UK incorporated company, registered as for charitable purposes, was completely above- board insofar as complying with UK law. Again they didn’t want to listen. Truth, accuracy and facts are so often the first casualties in their reckless blogs. The non registration with the UK Charities Commission and hence the delay in Gift Aid acceptance was the only questionable area.

We didn’t like the way the leaders and the inner sanctum of NTDM did business when dealing with their supporters, donors and critics. We didn’t like the fact that they attempted to discredit credible organisations in the field of battling against the dogs for meat trade. We didn’t like their often misleading posts which would suddenly disappear. We were sceptical because they changed their explanation of their charitable status etc. so often. We didn’t like that they usually removed any comments on their FB page which were not 100% congratulatory and often banned the commentator. And we certainly didn’t like the sometimes extremely vile abusive tactics they used. In the end we didn’t believe that this was a charity that was ever going to behave in the way the public had a right to expect.

The reason the two lady presenters of the current radio blog do not like us is because we objected to the way they conduct themselves. They are obsessed with a long time FB adversary and are only interested in blaming him for the discrediting of NTDM. They have never suffered the kind of attacks many of us have from the people involved with that organisation, and specifically against us going back to May. These two women came late to this issue and then only because they suspected that their adversary might be involved. When it seemed that he was, they had to back pedal fast and choose any side he wasn’t on.

We have been told by devious means that we are under police investigation? My fellow admin went to the police yesterday to ask if that were true. It is not true, the police do not concern themselves with this kind of issue. Doubts expressed in the public interest about an organisation that has now shown publicly that it was badly administered is acceptable free speech.

NTDM is a very recent animal charity, it has been forced by events within the organization to correct itself. We humbly suggest that the administrators concentrate their efforts on convincing the public that they can now be trusted with their money, and will not use donations to fight completely pointless court battles. We now all understand, I hope, that donations they receive are for lobbying and not for rescue. We also now understand that the aim of their ‘umbrella’ WPDCMT is to offer the same service as say, Wetnose, (http://www.wetnoseanimalaid.com/) which is a highly endorsed  organization, by enlisting unregistered small charities to benefit (for a fee) from their anticipated Gift Aid status?

We do not subscribe to hatred or threats of any kind under any guise.  We understand that sometimes emotions run high, especially when it relates to the terrible suffering inflicted on animals by humans, but abusive behaviour towards others is completely unacceptable. Anybody who has followed us throughout this journey will know that we have never advocated or endorsed hate or violence. On a bad day we may, in private, express our frustration, but that is in no way incitement.