Setting the Record Straight

I have permission to share this letter from the author Sharon Cooke, it is with regard to the hatchet job performed by an Irish television programme on an Irish animal rescue a week ago. Donations have been affected by this programme because people are so ready to believe the worst, I am trying to help set the record straight. Dear Sirs I wish to register a complaint about last week’s Claire Byrne Show on RTE. The show’s portrayal of Animal Heaven Animal Rescue (AHAR) appeared to be aimed at presenting this charity in the worst possible light by dishonestly manipulating facts in order to imply cruelty, neglect and financial misappropriation. As a British citizen, I am ignorant of the rules governing the conduct of Irish journalism so I am unsure whether Irish journalists have due diligence obligations or are professionally bound to undertake research to ensure that their programme is an honest reflection of the facts. !.0 Poor Research A simple internet or social media search would be sufficient to reveal that this charity is the victim of a small group of people who indulge in a personal vendetta against the charity’s founder, Suzanne Gibbons. They do this by attacking the reputation of AHAR in order to reduce its life-blood – donations. When I first became a supporter of this charity, I was concerned by some of the allegations made by the AHAR Exposed Face Book page. After a short exchange with the page admins, the claims of cruelty/neglect began to change according to the questions asked and it swiftly became clear that their claims were nonsensical. Much of your source material appears to have been generated by this group. Suzanne Gibbons is purely focussed on rescuing animals, bringing them back to health and giving them another chance of a decent life. For this, she has been stalked, threatened, physically attacked and had her reputation shredded by dishonest and slip-shod reporting. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that she refused to be interviewed by a journalist. However, Suzanne is not the only person involved in AHAR. Why didn’t your researchers accept AHAR’s invitation to meet with the Inspectors and vets who actually work with the charity? Why weren’t volunteers who currently help out at the centre asked to be interviewed? Why were only two adopters (both connected to the aforementioned group) of the many hundreds of recent adopters contacted? 2.0 Dishonest Reporting The most disturbing element of the programme was the implication that animals rescued by AHAR are somehow neglected or even treated badly. AHAR has a weekly open day. A brief visit by one of your researchers would have established that the animals are housed in adequate enclosures with clean bedding, food and water. Busy, friendly volunteers are busy walking, grooming, cleaning, feeding and socialising the inmates – most of which look in good health. Of course there are very thin and sick animals – they are recent rescues. 2.1 Welfare Notices Mention of “welfare notices” being issued was made during the programme. As journalists, you will be all too aware that the emotive word “welfare” would be interpreted by your viewers as something negative relating to the animals in their care. The truth of these welfare notices, as I am sure you are also aware, actually related to the need for driver training, a failure to have a map of their rented fields and the transportation of a pony with a broken leg – which was only transported as it had been dumped in the middle of the countryside in pouring rain and was not far from the centre. Hardly sadistic cruelty is it? Yet the way this information was promoted on the programme would lead viewers to believe the worst. 2.2 Adoption of sick/dying animals I have seen footage of the “sick” elderly dog the night before it “had to be” put to sleep. It was walking normally and wagging its tail. It hardly looked at death’s door. The adoption procedure of this dog had involved veterinary input and the adopter was aware that the dog was elderly. She was reimbursed the adoption and euthanasia fee after the dog was put to sleep. The case of the equines was dealt with equal professionalism. Why was this not reported? 2.3 The Meat Horses One of the most unfair and damaging claims was that AHAR were soliciting donations to rescue equines destined for dog meat when they had already purchased the animals. This is not true. The horses were being held by AHAR on a promise that payment would be made once sufficient funds had been raised. 2.4 Financial Dishonesty Whilst AHAR is rapidly becoming a significant animal rescue charity in Ireland, it is a very small player in the charities sector. The staff and volunteers work long, hard hours – often under acute pressure and awful conditions. It is hardly surprising that occasional accounting errors are made – particularly when dealing with travellers who usually have a cash only economy – hence the large ATM withdrawals. However, no accusations of misappropriation of funds have ever been made by any official body. The charity accepts that it must tighten its accounting procedures to eradicate future errors. However, in the cause of cheap sensationalism your programme chose to damage this worthy organisation by implying some form of dishonesty had taken place. 2.5 Creating Demand by Buying Animals AHAR has an open and honest policy of buying sick, starving and abused animals at fairs and of purchasing equines otherwise destined for the meat market. These animals represent a small fag-end of a huge market – buying them will not create a demand for the product. For your information, the “product” is often thrown into the back of a van to die of neglect , dumped on the roadside, used as dog fighting bait or warehoused without food, water or bedding until slaughtered for meat. It was dishonest to imply that the charity is creating a demand by shopping for animals. 3.0 Professional Misconduct To broadcast the personal telephone conversation of the charity’s founder without her permission must surely constitute a breach of privacy? To imply that her comments were serious threats is leaping to a huge conclusion – and you must know that. I have threatened to kill/slap/hate my adored husband and son countless times without the slightest intention of following through my “threats”. How many people would really kill for a cup of coffee or die for a bar of chocolate? Yet such terminology is often used. Did you report on some of the vile slurs and comments about Suzanne Gibbons on the AHAR Exposed page? No. To conclude, the representation of this charity was so biased and one-sided that there has been some speculation on social media that there is a personal connection between one of the “trolls” and the programme makers. I do hope that this is not true. The main consequence of your ill-researched and unfairly biased programme will inevitably be a reduction in AHAR donations as a large percentage of your viewers still, rather naively believe that what they read in a newspaper and see on the television is, in fact true. Last year, AHAR rescued 1,600 animals from certain death or a life of hell: young equines with shoes hammered onto immature feet and then beaten, whipped and kicked into racing, ponies with initials carved into their flanks with hot knives; dogs so beaten, starved and terrorised that they wet themselves with fear when approached by a human being. Hundreds of these animals have been placed with vetted adopters both in Ireland and the UK and are now well cared for, happy and much loved pets. Thanks to your programme that happy outcome will no longer be possible for very many animals who will now face a horrific future. Maybe Ms Byrne or your researchers could investigate the cruelty at some of the fairs or sneak into one of the “stables” where cold, starving, terrified equines destined for meat are warehoused up to their hocks in shit and not much else – after all why waste food or bother to get water for something that is going to be killed in a few days...... or weeks, maybe. However, that would take real investigative talent and a very large dose of courage (such people do not take kindly to exposure) to find out the truth and broadcast it. It is simpler and easier to target a relatively small charity who do not have the funds to retain a lawyer or PR specialist to rebut your false claims. Please let me know if you intend to issue a statement – correcting some of the inaccuracies and apologising for misleading the viewing public with regard to the welfare notices and misuse of donations. I look forward to your early response, Regards, Sharon Cooke