In our previous post we wrote, "Trained constables are required, and cruelty prevention is certainly animal welfare, so all the wages and vehicle and other expenses of enforcement of the PCA Act are legitimate animal welfare expenses - if the cruelty prevention is legitimate.

We say nothing here of the possibility that some seizures of animals "in distress" may have been illegal, but we can comment that some seizures were not animal welfare, because some of the seized were killed, others died, made sick at chronically disease-ridden SPCA "shelters", and many were sold to anyone who paid the money, no real screening, no home checks, no follow-ups, and dogs killed if they were returned because your staff sold them to the wrong person. That is not, by any definition, animal welfare.

Let me remind you Mr Daniell, of how often AAS and others begged you to tell branch staff that they were not to kill a single helpless animal that you had "heroically rescued" in front of the TV cameras and press, by your enforcement officers, and how you said you couldn't stop them, and how you let branch staff kill them.

And how so many real animal wefarist begged the SPCA to give them seized animals instead of killing them, and how you did not insist, from your position of power, that any animal the branches intended to kill, be first offered to the whole rescue network, and time given for them to find safe foster homes.

Let me remind you, while I have your attention, of the time you famously remarked to Jennifer Dickson: "If I seize a hundred animals and I have to euthanize ten, I still consider that seizure a success", thus implying that you approve of collateral damage - that killing some of the heroically seized is an acceptable means to an end for you.

And finally, let me (just try to stop me!) from making the point again, that no one can trust an organization like yours, when the heads of it think and act as you do.