As an arm of government the NSPCA currently have overwhelming authority. They can demand all sorts of things that they consider necessary – unilaterally – and without a published set of standards to which one can try and conform proactively. It is these new demands which have disrupted the established order at HY and which has forced them to reach out for help beyond their current resources.

This “reaching out” has had a relatively small return, compared to the high cost of dealing with self-appointed “champions” of animal rights, many of whom have not contributed a drop of sweat or clink of money. Gay really does know how to look after dogs. She does not need the noise of a 100 unhappy yappers. She does need help to deal with these new pressures.

One is always on the back foot and vulnerable to the NSPCA’s latest whims or PR-driven campaigns. You may say that HY should have its house in order anyway. Well, it is grossly unreasonable to expect an NGO to invest money in an over-design of facilities just to anticipate what the NSPCA will consider necessary next. Be realistic enough to accept that there is not a single facility in South Africa that could bear the full brunt of a vindictive inspector’s gaze – not even the NSPCA’s own facilities.

They also have a very optimistic view on what can be done within the unreasonable deadlines with which they present HY – once again a matter against which there is no effective appeal. You do it or the dogs die at their hands. The HY vet had to come out to the site at 19h00, and work in the dark in the pens until the lightning (he blitzy kind) got too bad, to try and satisfy one of these administrative twitches.

One resists the NSPCA at the peril of the lives of the dogs in one’s care. There is no way to “undo” euthanasia. Ask them where the 122 dogs are that they confiscated from HY and you will be met by a smokey silence. They even refuse to tell Gay what happened to her personal dogs that were in perfect condition – not even a hint of whether they are dead or alive! Which may explain the silence of many who are just too grateful that the NSPCA are preoccupied with HY and not sniffing at their gates…

Please understand that we are in the midst of a highly political battle with propaganda an inevitable part of the mix. When you see a video that that portrays HY in a negative light, please consider who was filming it and why, and with which prejudicial filters it is presented to you.

Just for interest’s sake – what do you think of the practice of posting videos of someone’s private property, procured under warrant, without such material first having been considered and released by a court? This is such a gross invasion of privacy it should cause outrage in every sensible South African. If the NSPCA feel that a crime has been committed, present the evidence to court, but do not use it to feed a voyeuristic frenzy of self-righteousness. And what do you think of the ethics of arriving with commercial 50/50 TV cameras in tow, under cover of a government warrant? Is that a whiff of something very “off” on the wind?

As for leaving animals left dying: Why don’t you ask the NSPCA why they continued their inspection for more than 2 hours, forcing Gay to babysit them, instead of allowing her to get on with the scheduled care of her animals? She had scheduled an appointment that afternoon to euthanise the one dog that had suddenly fallen into a painless coma LATE THAT MORNING (please take note Ian Lombard). The other dog that was confiscated on the 13th was busy recovering, having eaten well that morning. But the NSPCA had to justify their little outing to HY, so they just HAD to kill and confiscate SOMETHING. And do you think they are prepared to reveal what happened to the confiscated dog?

HY is taking legal action to overturn the two illegal searches that were conducted, but such a victory will not resurrect the dogs that were taken from Happy Yappers – for ever. For those of you interested in a big issue: consider the fact that the legislation from the 1960s, in terms of which the NSPCA is acting, is obsolete in many respects and offensive to our Constitution in many others, a matter which is being addressed aggressively by HY and its advisers.

Are you up for a fight worth fighting?

Jacques van Schoor

Bookmark this post:

Some puppies were tossed on a train track and crushed by a passing train, while others were beaten to death with sticks or smashed with bricks. Even children joined in the bloody slaughter. Another two dogs were found that were stoned to death.

60 dogs were collected from the area, many strays but many others given up by people who no longer wanted their dogs, either because of the hatred in the community towards dogs as a result of the attack, or perhaps because they feared for their dogs or their own safety. There is no doubt that most of these dogs will be ‘put to sleep’, the euphemism we use for taking the life of a sentient, healthy creature because we’ve screwed up…

It is sad that the people of this community saw fit to blame the dogs.

When you treat dogs in the manner that many people do in township communities – when you have multiple strays running around; when you offer dogs little or no affection; when you do not provide shelter or food; what exactly do you expect as a consequence of such treatment? The ignorance that pervades this scenario is obvious, but the root causes of these events lie far outside the understanding or scope of the individuals involved here to solve. We need to consider them carefully, because this situation is getting worse, not better, and will do so until we have similar circumstances to those in Greece, Romania and other European countries, where packs of dogs roam the streets, and police go out and shoot them…

How did this come to be?

Given the gestation period of 9 weeks in dogs, the likelihood in a normal suburban setting is that within 5 years, assuming a mortality rate of 5% and a cycle of 6 puppies to every female every 6 months, the result will be 65 000 new animals, and that is just from one pair in the beginning. If you consider the fact that the total domestic dog population in SA is estimated to be around 9.1 MILLION, you can perhaps see how easy it is for events to get out of control. About 10% of those 65 000 dogs will find homes; the rest will die as strays or in shelters at the end of a needle. Yet we somehow do not have laws restricting breeding…

It is inevitably more complex than mere biological reproduction rates, however. The behaviour of the dogs and the people must be brought into focus if we want a clear understanding.

When domesticated dogs are left to their own devices – the longer they have to survive by their instincts – the more they lose their respect for and eventually fear of humans, and become more and more predatory in nature.  It is natural for them to form packs and work together to find food and shelter. To a large extent, they become opportunist and will generally prefer to scavenge food left around, but will steal it if the opportunity presents itself. Given desperate enough conditions, they will attack.

As Alan Perrins (SPCA CT) says: “Many township dogs lack affection and often there is no mutual respect, forcing them to lead a feral existence. This is when their instincts as a predator manifest itself. Unsupervised children are most vulnerable and prone to being attacked due to their naivety and inquisitiveness.”

The step from being community dogs, given scraps of food from time to time, never given affection, and expected to survive in harsh environments without shelter, to becoming fully-fledged strays, is not a large one. When communities disregard the needs of the animals in their midst in this manner, the consequences that follow are really a negative feedback loop that results in the dogs paying the penalty for the ignorance.

The root causes lie with the humans, and it is ultimately the humans who are responsible for these horrific circumstances and events. Had there been consideration of the likely consequences of allowing animals  to breed, roam the streets, and leaving them to starve, the attacks could have been prevented.

The travesty is that somehow the animals have been blamed and an entire community has a distorted perspective on the role and value of domestic animals. Ignorance breeds ignorance, and we move further and further away from a society that gives moral consideration to creatures that have as much right as us to be here.

The part I found most alarming about all the news reports was that there was not one that drew any attention to the community’s contribution, nor was there any mention of the sterilisation imperative or even education of the public – the cycle of ignorance is continued by the press, and few are any wiser…

It’s more glaring evidence that as a society, we are failing our animals.

It’s time to take the steps that will lead to success: Click for Change

Derek

Read this excellent article which deals with the behavioural dynamics in more detail:

http://www.animalbehaviour.co.za/dogs/township-dogs/dogs-kill-toddler-in-cape-town/

Bookmark this post:

Copied below is a vet report on the damage done to my dog Bear by Donne Lucas’ grooming parlour Walmer Grooming Centre. I first want to say that for the past number of months Donne has been collecting my dogs having them groomed and returning them to my satisfaction. Unfortunately, when things went bad she sent me an sms saying quote: Pets collected and groomed are at the owners risk”. Nothing was ever signed to this effect. I just worry about someone having an expensive thoroughbred dog collected and Donne getting involved in an accident. She has no insurance againt injury or death to your animals. She has shown no concern and has not bothered to come out and see the damage her company has caused to the beautiful lassie dog. I am in the process of seeking legal advice. I have asked her to please pay the vet bill which is R1178. + but she has refused. Donne will also not answer any sms sent to her. I sent her a letter with the account and the vets report. She has once again chosen to ignore it. More than the money it is a matter of principal.

From the Vet: (shortened slightly) Bear was presented to 9th Avenue Vet Clinic this morning (morning after Bear was dropped off at my house) with a laceration to his left hind limb. Bear was groomed by Walmer Grooming Centre owned by Donne Lucas and Mrs Giddy noticed a large cut on his left hind limb when returned home. The laceration is about 4cm long on the left hind limb. There are multiply clipper marks around the wound and extending into the wound. The wound is VERY DEEP WITH MULTIPLE PUNCTURE HOLES THROUGH THE MUSCLE LAYERS, LEAVING DEEP TUNNELS AND CREATING A LOT OF DEAD SPACE. The wound edges; underlying subcutaneous tissue, and muscle layers, had a black discolouration which could possible be due to the usage of staal druppels to stop the bleeding. We had to surgically debride the wound and skin edges, and due to all the dead space and depth of the wound we had to place a drain. The wound was closed in three layers. Muscle layer, subcutaneous layer and the skin.”

I am not suggesting that anyone stop using this grooming parlour, but please make sure that your precious pets are covered by insurance before entrusting them to Donne Lucas as she will not claim responsibility for any harm caused to them by her groomers. I have kept record of sms’s sent to Donne and the one when she refuses to take responsibility.

Barbara Giddy

Bookmark this post:

The major focus of most animal welfare organisations is on rescuing neglected, abused and lost animals. In the current crisis, where more and more animals arrive daily at shelters that are already overfull,  strays and abandonments are on the increase, and every day we discover yet another incidence of neglect or cruelty. There is a huge need for those who rescue, rehabilitate and rehome, a process as demanding as it is thankless because of the enormity of the problem,  becoming more dire as the days go by. Were it not for rescuers, who for the most part are volunteers with day jobs, the problem would be far worse. In Russia, Romania, Greece, and other European countries, there are packs of dogs running around in cities and municipalities are resorting to shooting them in the street…

But rescue is not prevention. It may be true for the particular dog being rescued, but it is what responsible rescuers do once the animal is in their care that makes all the difference and constitutes the most significant component of the process, because it stops the destructive cycle that leads to so many unwanted animals. The animal is sterilised.

Sterilisation is the most important strategy for prevention of cruelty, since it halts the breeding and multiplication process in its tracks.

An animal that has not been born cannot experience cruelty. Given that there are homes for only 1 in every 10 domestic animals, allowing animals to breed indiscriminately is to foster the cruelty inherent in the existence of abandonment, strays, puppy mills, life in animal shelters, and eventual death, either by starvation, disease, or euthanasia. Euthanasia is not an act of welfare, it is an act of cruelty since it terminates the life of a sentient being early for no good reason, purely because it is expedient.

It is completely incompatible for an organisation to say it ‘prevents cruelty’ if sterilisation is not a core component of their approach to the problem.

We MUST embark on a process of limiting the rights of people to breed at home. If we are serious about preventing cruelty, it is the only sensible path to follow:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/restrict-domestic-animal-breeding/

Derek

The Hopeful Foundation

derek@hopeful.ws

Bookmark this post:

1. The continued and increasing emigration of people who then abandon their animals to an uncertain future in animal welfare shelters. Whether they know that the life expectancy of most of these animals is likely to be extremely short is not known. The Joburg Municipality paid the SPCA R4 MILLION in 2009 for the ‘service’ of euthanizing domestic animals…
2. The escalating problem where people experiencing financial difficulties are surrendering their animals to shelters or, in more cases than we are willing to confront, merely abandoning them, either leaving them on properties from which they abscond or dropping them off in the street and driving away…
3. The Dog and Cat by-laws promulgated in Jan 2010 have had the effect of placing law-abiding and taxpaying citizens at the mercy of those who dislike animals and have resulted in many cases in those who do not understand the options available to them relinquishing their animal companions for no good reason. In addition, foster homes who might have been able to act as a capacity buffer during these difficult times are effectively reducing their availability in view of the legislation.

All of the above result in a reduction of capacity in the community to absorb the inputs, and therein lies the major problem. The inputs are not decreasing – they are increasing. Between Puppy Mills, irresponsible individuals who breed at home, registered breeders and strays, if anything the inputs of animals into the social system are increasing. They do so for several reasons:

1. We still, some 125 years after the first SPCA was started in South Africa, do not have sterilisation legislation preventing indiscriminate breeding of animals, even though it has been known for several decades that this is problematic and leads to the well-known “There are more animals than homes” often uttered as a justification for the mass euthanizing of an estimated 1 000 000 (1 MILLION) domestic animals in South Africa a year.
2. Policing of the APA (Animals Protection Act) is almost non-existent. Unless brought to SAPS attention by Welfare Inspectors or workers, the plight of animals seems to be reflected by an officer of the law’s recent statement that ‘animals are not important’ while preventing, at a roadblock, a sick dog from getting to a vet. The dog died. It’s time the policing of animal legislation was given to people who care about them. In many cases, animals are bred in less-than-ideal circumstances because those who breed them have profit as their main concern, not animal welfare…
3. We still allow Pet Shops, who have no incentive to act in the animals’ interests, to sell domestic animals, thereby creating a demand for Puppy Mill animals.
4. Sterilisation is ridiculously expensive, and the veterinary community seem quite happy to support the pricing of the very process that would, were it cheaper, help to reduce the problems we face. We have seen a vet perform 20 sterilisations in an hour and a half, so the current pricing of between R500 and R1500 seems hopelessly incompatible with the needs of the community. Added to this is the fact that despite the numerous benefits to the community of sterilisation – less strays, less animal-related health issues, less animal attacks, not to mention the benefit to any community of taking responsibility for animals and learning both from the nurturing as well as the relationship aspects – Government has made not one cent of investment in this process.

We believe it is time Government took responsibility. Johannesburg Municipality must introduce legislation, as has recently been done in the Eastern Cape, that will restrict domestic animal breeding as well as arm animal welfare organisations to police it since the SAPS have more pressing priorities. The legal process in which Bell Dewar law firm will oppose the Dog and Cat by-laws has as a component the development of alternative legislation that will impact these problems, and it is important that while this process of engaging with Government runs its course, we are preparing behind the scenes.

It is with this in mind that we have created a petition asking Government to regulate the domestic animal breeding process. I do not usually like petitions, but in this case, the petition is aligned to another initiative – it is not attempting to sway people by sheer force of numbers, but on the basis of principle and logic. Every single animal lover in South Africa needs to sign this – it’s that important. It does not matter that it focuses on Johannesburg – it is true for every district in South Africa.

Please go here, and then share this Blog post (not the link below, the one in the address bar above, so that they come here first) with everyone you know:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/restrict-domestic-animal-breeding/

I will be in contact at a later stage so that you can send key personnel in Government emails communicating your support for this petition.

Derek

The Hopeful Foundation

derek@hopeful.ws

Bookmark this post:

A variety of agricultural insecticide products are utilised daily to control insects In crops as well as in our homes and gardens. Various products are also registered for the control of parasites on dogs, cats, horses and livestock. A range of chemical active ingredients, including organophosphates and carbamates, are included in products for agricultural and household use as well as in flea collars and other topical tick and flea control products.
Misuse and overexposure result in animals and humans being poisoned. Many pet animals are targeted annually and die as a result of toxin misuse for criminal intent such as house breaking and theft.
Carbamates and organophosphates are related toxins that affect the nervous systems of animals and humans, interfering with conduction of impulses to the heart, muscles and intestinal tract.

What do these toxins look like?

A large variety of commercially formulated products are available on the market e.g. impregnated flea collars, spot-on preparations, liquid dip preparations, powders and aerosols for household use, plant and crop sprays, and granules for agricultural use.
The most commonly perceived product being misused for malicious poisoning contains the active ingredient aldicarb, which is formulated as small black granules that resemble poppy seeds. However other granular products may resemble the aldicarb granules and in some cases differently coloured granules may be coloured black by criminals.

Precautions

If an animal is suspected to be poisoned, the environment should be searched for bait, usually meat based, which contains these granules. Vomit and/or fur soiled with vomit or saliva should also be examined for the presence of the granules. Ensure that children and other pet animals are kept away from the area suspected of being contaminated with poisoned food or body fluids.

What are the signs of poIsoning

• Salivation
• Muscle tremors
• Vomiting
• Diarrhoea
• Difficulty breathing
• Seizures
• Weakness and paralysis
• Slow heart rate
• Small pupils

How should a poisoned animal be handled?

The poisoned animal Is a potential source of human overexposure. Avoid direct contact with vomit, other body fluids or bait potentially containing toxin. The animal should be wrapped in a blanket to avoid human exposure to toxin, to calm the animal and keep it warm. Any skin that comes into contact with the toxin should be washed immediately. Use rubber or plastic gloves to protect yourself and ensure that you protect your eyes.

Bayer HealthCare
Animal Health

Bookmark this post:

Today I put down a dog. I don’t know if she had an owner and I don’t know if she had a name.

She was just an old dog, probably not nearly as old as she looked, who had spent her whole sad life in a bad place. She was very thin and had bad mange of most of her body, and ticks and fleas and worms. Her hindquarter had collapsed, partly from malnutrition and partly from bad arthritis from old untreated injuries. Her ears had been cut short and were eaten away by flies. Her teeth were stumps, probably from biting at wire or a chain. Her well-worn teats were hanging from raising litter after litter of puppies. There was no fur on her back end from dragging herself around. She wagged her naked tail and tried to crawl to us, thrilled to have a kind touch, even though she was in a strange vehicle taken by strange people to a strange place.

She is not a newsworthy abuse case, or a dramatic rescue story, or a happy-ending adoption. One of the FOUR PAWS teams got to her in time to give her a kind and gentle death. But nobody was there to give her a better life. Everything wrong with her was preventable or treatable. She shows us that there is still not enough….

Not enough public awareness or education about animal welfare

Not enough organisations prepared to go into the bad places

Not enough money or people or vehicles for those that are

Not enough people marketing and fundraising for charities

Not enough professionals prepared to do charity work

Not enough people volunteering to help a little

Not enough shelters with not enough space

Not enough enforced legislation against neglect and abuse

She’s just another nameless casualty in the battle against ignorance and the pet population explosion. There is no armistice in this war. The burden falls on too few too much of the time. The grave of the unknown soldier is a black plastic bag in a freezer in a veterinary clinic. And the war goes on.

Shelagh Hahn

Bookmark this post:

In each instance, a human angel has come forward, willing to mend the broken spirit with unending and absolute love and commitment.

The most recent of these adoptions happened this weekend, to everyone’s delight.

I was called out to remove a Chow from a property earlier this year.  The so-called caregivers of Teddy, as we came to call her, had left her behind on a rental property when they moved. She had been on her own for weeks by the time we were informed. No-one could come near Teddy, and I eventually reached the ‘owner’ and requested her to help me get Teddy into the car, so we could bring her to safety.  She could not handle her own dog.  Could not even touch her to pick her up and put her into the car.  I left to collect tranquillisers from the vet, and when I returned, the new resident and his family were there, furious about the dog – he had called a certain institution to take her away.  Now, we all know, this would have meant immediate euthanasia, as she was described as ‘vicious’.  I had scarcely started feeding her sedative-laced pieces of chicken, when they arrived.  They could not, with all their equipment, capture this dog, who was fearful to the extreme.  In the end, we agreed to  follow my route with the tranquillisers, and so managed to capture her.  The representative of the institution would not allow me to take the dog, as he had to follow the procedures.  Thus I followed him to the local office, and took full responsibility for Teddy, with the result that the whole case was regarded as closed from their side.

She was taken to our organisation’s  vet hospital, where the horribly matted coat was groomed under anaesthetic, and where she was spayed, vaccinated, dewormed and microchipped.  She slept inside at night and, during the day she had the free run of the garden along with all our other rescues. She would come up and give a quick lick in recognition, but still would not allow anyone to touch her.  And so three months passed, with Teddy becoming an integral part of daily life at the hospital. We could not send out a request for a home on the general network, as Teddy had to go to someone who was knowledgeable about the breed; who had experience of rehabilitating a dog of the same breed; had quick access to our vet should Teddy have any need for vet care; would keep her on the high-quality food she received to build up her system after years of neglect; would be able to groom her regularly; would have the patience and commitment to love her through thick and thin.

Yesterday, Teddy’s world changed.  A lady who had regular contact with Teddy at the vet’s rooms, and who saw her potential and understood her fear, sent her husband around to meet Teddy.  We left the two of them to get to know each other, and carried on with business.  This gentleman had previously changed a Chow with the same fear/aggression behavioural pattern into a loving family member, so it was with the utmost faith in his compassion that we allowed this meeting.

Both our sanctuary vet and myself have known the family for years, and have been to their home several times.  it was a pre-approved home in all senses of the word.  And indeed, when Teddy was unceremoniously taken into the car and driven away, there was no doubt in our minds.

The feedback has been wonderful, the miracle has happened!

Teddy immediately made friends with the other resident dogs, followed her new dad like a shadow all day and, after some coaxing, made the house her home.  Today’s report: Teddy is allowing dad to stroke and handle her, and has even permitted him to brush and groom her…

So, to all of you who take in our very abused and confused rescues, give them unconditional love and help them to trust again:  YOU are the unsung heroes, YOU are the true rescuers.  We salute you.

Bookmark this post:

This is a blatant lie. The two witnesses spoken of are Tracy Forte and Wynand le Roux and there are no ‘personal issues’ that would have kept either of them from attending one of the most important, high profile animal welfare cases to reach the courts. Even while on suspension, Tracy attended the Muffin case in court. No more needs to be said regarding her commitment to the animals.

Wet Nose goes on further to say, “according to the court the witnesses had been notified, we even spoke to Wynand that same morning regarding the case”.

That the witnesses had been notified is another lie – Tracy and Wynand had not been notified, and Wynand was informed for the first time on the day of the trial that it was taking place then, hardly time enough to make arrangements, which he could not do at such short notice. The investigating officer in the case, Inspector Vlok from Pretoria North Police Station, did not deliver the subpoenas, even though he had them for more than a month. Why did he not do so? Was his arm twisted?

Wet Nose also informed Prosecutor Marie Jonker that they had no contact details for Tracy and could not get hold of her. Yet another lie, since Wet Nose have Tracy’s home address, her home telephone number, her attorney’s email address, and if they had urgently wanted to get hold of her, they knew I was in contact with her, and could easily have sent me an email.

Surely, given the importance of this case and Wet Nose’s claimed focus on the interests of the animals, they should have been following this up closely and not left things for the last minute? Surely they could not be so incompetent as to forget? Maybe it wasn’t incompetence…

Remember that van Aardt, Potgieter and Grobler were seen at Tracy’s high court hearing, clearly establishing their association and involvement in these issues. I wonder whether any person with a sound mind can ignore the coincidences and the extremely fortuitous (for those with agendas other than the animals’ welfare) sequence of events that has now resulted in van Aardt’s case getting struck from the roll. Was this the intention behind the hijacking of the Wet Nose Board? Has money changed hands with that purpose in mind?

The matter has now been referred to the Department of Public Prosecutions and a decision is pending regarding whether the case can be placed back on the roll. I hope that the incompetence or intent of those at Wet Nose does not allow such an injustice. It does not bode well for the future of the fight against animal neglect and abuse, which Tracy Forté has championed for so long and so hard.

It further underlines the need to examine this Board’s legitimacy, competence, and personal associations. The welfare of the animals is at risk.

Derek

The Hopeful Foundation

Bookmark this post:

When you ignite a firework in the proximity of an animal, the effect on the animal is, in most cases, significant. While the volume of the noise is an issue, it’s the nature of the noise and the way it is propagated that is more important. You can play loud music close to any animal and they will probably sleep through it. But play the sound of gunshots or explosions, and you will get a very different reaction. The reason for this is that the animal is perceiving sounds that are very similar to those made by a forest fire, and in such a situation, the only alternative for an animal is flight, to get away as far and as fast as possible. You create a panic state in the animal, who is terrified because the sound represents a life-threatening situation. So when you ignite a firework, you are effectively scaring someone else’s treasured companion to the point that they believe their lives are in danger. And that’s one good reason not to light a firework in an urban area where there are animals.

But there is a second reason. It’s ILLEGAL. The law is very clear: “No person may light or ignite fireworks in any place where animals are present”. No Person, at any Time or Place, may ignite a firework where Animals are Present. Period. What does ‘Present’ mean? To an animal, whose hearing may be anything from 100 to a thousand times more sensitive than human hearing, a firework can probably be heard quite distinctly from more than 1 km away. Effectively, it means that igniting a firework in an urban area is illegal, since there are animals in all urban areas.

Of course there will be those who think that they are above the law and others who believe that the police will not come. There are other alternatives available to the public when the police do not do their jobs and social criminals show no respect for the law.

It is time the public took responsibility, and sent a clear message to those who cannot understand what it means to be considerate to the community in which one lives.  Lay charges – your local police station MUST assist you to do so.

Remember that it is illegal, whatever the date and whether someone has a permit or not, to terrify an animal with a firework. (Animal Protection Act)

Here is the link to the Firework By-Laws:

Excerpt from Emergency Services By-Laws 2004

Of course, we have the strange state of affairs where people may apply for authorisation to effectively break the law, and this has yet to be tested in a court of law. It’s time we confronted both the lawbreakers and this legislation…

Derek

The Hopeful Foundation

Bookmark this post: