TAIZ ZOO: ANTI TERRORIST POLICE & TROLLS BOTCH OPERATION.
PUBLIC NOTICE
[AID & HELP WITHDRAWN]
Wednesday 17th at 14:30hrs a member of our team was visited by the Anti Terrorist Police of the United Kingdom. The allegation that was made (and we know it was), as we hold that evidence, was in relation to our own desperate pleas to bring aid, veterinary assistant, and medication to suffering and starving animals at the Zoological Gardens in Yemen, Taiz. The allegation is listed below for your information based on a communication[s] made public on the 3rd or 4th February 2016. The complaint was picked from Twitter that we have been monitoring for some time. The officer and branch we have not identified in that communication. [See data below relating to that visit, names are withheld]. (Image: Third above party image not-related to I.A.R.F.A)
Image: Malicious complaints published on line, Anti Terror Police had to investigate.
BELOW WE’VE INCLUDED THE POST-IT-NOTE DATA RELATING TO POLITE QUESTIONING.
[Name withheld], [accused name withheld], [officer and dept name withheld]. “Hi I believe that [name withheld]”, is organizing a heavily armed gang of men, or is funding terrorists to commit terror atrocities within Yemen”. Please view the screen shots above that have derived from the complaint that forced officers to intervene despite their being no evidence whatsoever to then leave the note, and follow up with a visit Wednesday 17th 2016. Further to this under no circumstances has anyone of our team been convicted, or charged with ‘arson’, and even if they were how would that then come across to the Police as [concerning].
Image: Note from Anti Terror Police, relating to the allegations above on Twitter.
At approximately 14:30hrs, yesterday, Anti Terror Police visited a member of our team which was a polite visit, and was merely to ask questions. There was no arrests made, no action taken, nor was there any reason really for concern. However, due to the questions asked, and the mannerism of informal questioning from the Detective, related to the Anti Terror Branch, this has seriously impacted on our efforts to push help into Taiz Zoological Gardens. The reasons are set out below.
Yes we could have simply ignored this, and not have printed the above data. However when so called ‘animal lovers’ place legitimate legal operations in danger, they must be held accountable. While we fully support what the Detective Constable had to say, the DC did drop quite a few clangers. Those clangers I.e information which has intimidated a member of our team, has left us to believe [without a doubt], that the Anti Terror Police have conducted their own investigation before visiting, and may still be monitoring our systems. All of which is totally unnecessary!
Certain questions and remarks that were verbally communicated directly inform us that the Anti Terror Police have done more than “politely visited’. The visit in our opinion (was a mere gesture of letting us know they are watching us), or have been for some time. Below we have printed our response in relation to calling this project off. I.A.R.F.A of which has various skills in this area of rescue are deeply saddened.
- We believe that whatever help we offer or communications we publish, will be monitored.
- We believe that due to the interference from the two individuals that reside in the UK identified as Ms Cole and Ms McCusker that any actions we take, or data we publish could place our own team in danger, via the communication of malicious time wasting Police complaint[s]. A crime known as [Perverting the Course of Justice].
- Due to these [malicious communications], we have strong reason to believe that should we push help into Yemen, these two individuals could place peoples lives in danger via communicating their names, our project[s], or other, via further unproven, and more than inaccurate reports.
- We have strong reason to believe that should we ‘organize a team to move into Yemen’, which isn’t actually a criminal offence. The team may themselves come under Anti Terror Police scrutiny, investigation and/or questioning. Such reports could result in their names being published within media and press, which in turn could if they were allowed to move on into Yemen then seriously place their lives in danger of attack from terrorists. We simply cannot allow that, nor will we place environmental, veterinary or aid workers in danger of attack.
- Despite the fact we have been the ‘victim of false allegations’ you the [public] can still donate hereto https://www.generosity.com/animal-pet-fundraising/help-starving-animals-in-abandoned-yemen-zoo-now-2
The allegation made was indeed very cruel, and has unfortunately resulted in us pulling any help from Yemen, or even organizing via self funding a team to move into Yemen to help these very distressed, starving and sick zoo animals, (all of which is legal). The help was carefully organised of which we were deeply concerned that placing our ‘own funding’ to unknown individuals could result in that funding being sent to criminals to commit terror atrocities. Due to past issues with zoological gardens we decided to stick to our protocol of which was to visit, treat, and then find one out. All of which has been [ruined by malicious complaints and twisted so called animal lovers].
Image: Lion has since died, from starvation hence why we had to act to save others.
A meeting offline was organised today on behalf of the CEO. The CEO didn’t attend. The CEO and ourselves believe that under the current circumstances, and the fact further malicious complaints could be reported, down to innocent people being questioned. Then regrettably we have no other option but to quit this project and cease all communications to the United Nations, and further foreign individuals. Please do note though - there is a funding link above that you can send a donation to, which is UNRELATED TO I.A.R.F.A.
While we accept the current ‘concerns’, and why the Anti Terror Police did conduct an informal interview, after ‘some days of monitoring our own online activity’. There are many aid workers and rangers working in much dangerous countries than Yemen today as we speak. We know that our systems have been looked into, we even know that some of own emails and data online has been scanned by (Anti Terror Police).
Image: Yemen Zoo animals are fed when aid can reach them.
Anti Terror Police must satisfy themselves that no crime is being committed such as funding of terrorists to commit terror atrocities overseas, which we fully acknowledge, and do not blame them for conducting their investigation.
As of today we will no longer be conducting research into this zoo, nor will we be funding any operation or individuals whatsoever to move in. We are saddened that so called “animal lovers” have propagated such malicious complaints, and we are frustrated that so called animal lovers have since placed the lives of many innocent animals in harms way from real terrorists, and armed forces from Houthis and Islamic State. Not forgetting bombing raids conducted my the Royal Saudi Air Force.
Image: The zoo receives under $400 a day, many animals need help.
We are also ‘angered to the core’ that the British Anti Terror Police conducted an online investigation, monitored our systems, and “we believe placed spyware onto our systems to ensure that we wasn’t working with terrorists”. We do not under any circumstances accept that the Detective Constable simply wanted to “have a quick and polite chat”, we do accept that the constable was basically warning us that they are watching us, or would be. Although this is simply speculation, we will not, whatsoever tolerate an invasion of our privacy by UK and/or US Anti Terror Police.
Image: Fact-finding mission report: Number of animals in Taiz Zoo.
A polite email would have been suffice. further to this, the communication that was printed online clearly provides our details and whom we are (hardly terrorists), and what we were asking for. Lastly, if we were recruiting terrorists - we’d most certainly not be advertising about such monstrosities online via a pubic server, supported by over half a million people alone.
Today 18th February 03:18 local time, we now withdraw our help, and please advise the public to refrain from communicating emails to us regarding this zoo. We had only one further hurdle to overcome. Unfortunately that has been destroyed by evil, twisted and deranged cyber trolls. We simply cannot place peoples lives in danger in such ‘sensitive environments’ as explained. The zoo requires an estimated $700USD a day, however while we were prepared to fund, even send veterinary assistance within the zoo, we are not risking this, while other animals require our help. Further to this we simply cannot place wildlife crime investigations in danger of being ruined, or even delayed.
International Animal Rescue Foundation is not a terror organisation. We help many poorly equipped, underfunded, and damaged zoological gardens around the planet. We undertake various wildlife investigations providing INTERPOL, international and local police with our findings, yet we are being harassed more to say by the very people that were helping. Sadly we withdraw our help in relation to this zoo.
We apologize for the upset caused. We haven’t received an apology from the Police or what gave them [very good reasons to scan our systems, data, emails and more online].
Should you wish to fund this zoo yourself, then you can by clicking the image link below. While we ourselves support such funding operations, and have been provided with ‘more than enough data’, our main aim was to send veterinary assistants to the zoo, view what is required rather than provide funding to a cause.
You can place a donation hereto via clicking the link below in the image article.
Board of Directors.
Formal Public Apology addressed to: World Protection for Dogs and Cats in the Meat Trade Charity.
International Animal Rescue Foundation
Formal Public Apology addressed to: World Protection for Dogs and Cats in the Meat Trade Charity Registration No: 1154524.
Addressed to: (WPDCMT UK)
MR DAVID MERRILL
MME JULIA DE CADENET
MR Robert DONKER’S
http://www.notodogmeat.com/
Addressed to: (WPDCMT USA)
MME FIA PERERA
MME LORI ALLEN
http://www.notodogmeat.com/usateam.php
Dear Mme Julia de Cadenet (CEO).
March (2013) our organisations investigations department the [E.A.D] and (CEO) Dr Depre was alerted to ‘allegations of possible fraud, deception, and misconduct relating to the misuse of public donations’. Once alerted we then conducted a tedious, and at times, quite frustrating investigation, within the public domain, and behind the scenes. From (2013-2016) we (the organisation) was provided with countless reams of data, emails dating back from 2013-2014, and alleged misconduct, (relating to deception and fraud).
From 2013-2016 the organisation then set about to investigate these alleged claims. At no point from 2013-2016 did we or third parties locate a single scrap of evidence that backed these claims up. The reasons for our own independent investigation was due to the gargantuan public backlash of which was bringing other (unrelated organisations into disrepute directly and indirectly). The public backlash has derived from what we can only locate 6-9 individuals online that are related directly or indirectly. Most of the names involved have been withheld.
The following data listed below has proven to be false from 2013-2016, which we (the organisation) apologize profusely, because at times we were led to believe that fraud, and deception was ongoing, regarding the communications that were posted online. These communications in the way of (screenshots and copied and pasted emails), pushed us briefly out of conservationism investigations, and into civil actions, which we believed at the best of times, that these allegations were indeed factual. A meeting that was held in relation to the work that we conduct annually bought up the alleged allegations and how we could either prove them to be true or false via ‘professional investigatory work’. From this point, allegations; he said this; she said that; (Etc) were then pushed aside. A meeting was then arranged with the Charity Commission (2015 September), and the Institute of Fundraising, with a further meeting (2016 and communications via telephone)..
1… When founded the charity allegedly illegally harvested donations from street pots without a license. (This allegation has been proven to be false, and the council involved have confirmed that a licence was indeed sent to the fundraiser).
2. Refunds were not awarded to a handful of individuals that purchased clothing from the charity website. (Emails from 2013-2014 have proven this to be false, receipts and PayPal data has also proven these allegations to be false).
3. 2014-2015 charity 1154524 ‘allegedly stole donations via a Total Giving platform donation link’. The allegations stated that charity 1154524, hadn’t given all incoming donations on a restricted UK fundraiser to the Philippines ‘non-registered charity Dogs Mountain’. Total Giving was in fact to blame here, for not closing down the fundraiser which they have confirmed. The reason why charity 1154524 were not made aware of incoming money was because PayPal does not state where that income is coming from. PayPal only confirms that an ‘amount has been delivered in the PayPal account, and who from, but doesn’t confirm which ‘titled platform’. Allegation is false.
4. The British charity allegedly didn’t provide all funding raised to the Romanian charity identified as: Adapostul de caini din Baia Mare. PayPal data has proven this allegation to be false. The charity provided the relevant funding, however ‘didn’t continue with their promises of providing blankets, food, cover Etc or a visit’. Charity 1154524 couldn’t keep their promise back in (2014) because other shelters were in need too. Furthermore the charity had exceeded their (2014) expenditure totaling £9,066. Charity 1154524 did not commit an illegal activity. See link here: http://forms.charitycommission.gov.uk/find-charities/
5. 2013 an image of actor Peter Egan was posted onto the main charities webpage and Facebook page. This allegation is factual. However the ‘allegations that stated the image was posted to harvest donations was false’. Mr Egan demanded a ‘trial by Twitter of which the charity refused to answer questions. This allegation is factual. However Mr Egan was asked to phone and/or email - which Mr Egan refused to do. Mr Egan an no point explained why he was at the charities demonstration, nor did he understand that the photos belonging to the charity could be posted. Traces online do actually show Mr Egan’s images being used to raise funds - see link hereto: http://www.ourdisappearingplanet.com/ the link is also advertised on Mr Egans site hereto http://www.peter-egan.co.uk/page_2157999.html
6. An allegation was made that Mme Brown, the then director of charity 1154524 hadn’t visited South Korea. The visit was confirmed. Donations raised for this visit were all legitimate. Skype records prove Mme Brown did visit, and the allegations that Mme Brown didn’t visit are in fact false
Points 1-6 have been extensively investigated and verified by all parties, councils, the charity, registered charities, non-registered charities, and individuals. Furthermore we have proof to back these claims up. Proof of where the communications derived from, telephone records, emails and communications from the Total Giving and PayPal platform.
From 2015-2016 we was then sent allegations that charity 1154524 stole donations totaling $80,000 GBP that was raised for the individual identified as Mrs Yang Xiaoyun, of China, Tianjin. The following data below is factual.
1. June 2015 Ms Ling opened and created a Total Giving fundraiser for Mrs Yang Xiaoyun. Ms Ling placed into that platform Mrs Yang Xiaoyun’s images, with brief description of ongoing problems. Data confirms that Ms Ling implemented the images into that platform. (fact).
2. August 2015 charity 1154524 then began receiving large amounts of donations of which was primarily due to various (unidentified individuals) sharing the platform link, during the June, Chinese YuLin festival. (fact).
3. After contacting trustees it has emerged that the charity was only going on Ms Lings say so, her own concerns, and why she believed setting the fundraiser up was necessary. (fact).
4. Ms Ling then retired from the charity at some time during October 2015 after ‘alleged re-naming of the fundraiser. Communications broke down between Ms Ling and the British charity resulting in the charity being left with no direct communication to Mrs Yang Xiaoyun. (fact).
5. Donations continued to roll in from June to December 2015. the charity stated that they would try to send to Mrs Yang Xiaoyun, food, veterinary help, and donations. Despite the fact they were working with little information on and about Mrs Yang Xiaoyun due to Ms Ling retiring from the charity. (fact).
6. Mrs Yang Xiaoyun was then visited by the charity and trustee (Aug-Sep 2015). Mrs Yang Xiaoyun was handed a years rent for an undisclosed address. Further to this Mrs Yang Xiaoyun was handed via various transactions public donations before and after the visit totaling £12.000GBP. (fact). However it’s been alleged that a total of £15,000 was given.
7. When charity 1154524 visited Mrs Yang Xiaoyun a catalog of abuse, neglect and hoarding was witnessed. (fact).
8. The charity then reported their findings back to the Charity Commission as instructed (fact).
9. The Charity Commission then ‘strictly advised’ that Mrs Yang Xiaoyun set up a banking account for the fund of £80.000 to be deposited, Mrs Yang still hasn’t complied with this polite offer instructed by the Charities Commission. (fact).
10. Unfortunately due to the reams of data coming in from unrelated Chinese rescuers, and what the charity themselves witnessed - the fund was ‘allegedly frozen’ (factual to some degree).
The video above is allegedly all innocent within those calling allegations. Translated into (real Mandarin) which will be within article no 1-5 it shows and proves exactly what happened that day. The images in the video also show evidence of (abuse, neglect, hoarding, poor animal husbandry, and dead, diseased animals laying on the premises.
Further Evidence:
1. Following the events that relate to Mrs Yang Xiaoyun, Mr Andrew Penman of the Daily Mirror was asked by Mr Peter Egan and Dr Daniel Allen to conduct an investigation into ‘fraud’. The reporter then published the following article (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dog-charity-cash-mystery-animal-6941593) - of which doesn’t prove under any circumstances that the charity 1154524 defrauded Mrs Yang Xiaoyun out of any money whatsoever, or anyone for that matter. (fact).
2. Mr Andrew Penman and Dr Allen then stated that the Charities Commission were investigating the British charity 1154524 for alleged fraud. On contacting the Charities Commission back in September and December 2015, as well as communicating and telephoning the commission. No investigation has been confirmed as going ahead whatsoever. (fact).
3. British charity 1154524 offered Mrs Yang Xiaoyun food vouchers, instead of money. This seems to have either 1. been ignored, 2. not communicated properly to Mrs Yang Xiaoyun, or refused by Mrs Yang Xiaoyun. (fact).
4. The Charity Commission have categorically stated (February 2016), “in the interests of public transparency, and the findings relating to Mrs Yang Xiaoyun’s yard. Its in public’s and charities interests to ensure that any-money raised, is provided for the reasons it was raised for”. The Commission confirmed the charities concerns being; the number of animals that were allegedly rescued (not on the premises), no cats that were allegedly rescued from the YuLin festival; hoarding; neglect; abuse Etc. (fact).
5. The Charities Commission have ‘confirmed’ that all funds raised (for Mrs Yang Xiaoyun) remain in the charities bank. Funds will not under-any-circumstances be administered to Mrs Yang Xiaoyun until she establishes a banking account herself, and proves to the charity where the animals that she rescued from YuLin are, which is what the public provided funding for.
The following data above focuses on the ‘alleged allegation of fraud, deception and misuse of public funding’s’, and nothing else.
Conclusion: The Charities Commission, ourselves, requests via the FOIA, and communications to various Chinese agencies have proven that no fraud, or deception is ongoing. Until proven otherwise we (International Animal Rescue Foundation) wish to make a public and frank apology to charity 1154524 for insinuating and agreeing that fraud/deception Etc was ongoing. I.A.R.F does not under any circumstances have any relation to the charity 1154524 nor do we want relations either now or in the future.
Members of the public that want these claims verified can contact the agencies above for further clarification (or the charity themselves). Furthermore a visit to the charity in London to view bookkeeping which is a term set out under the HMRC has located no wrong doing. British charity No To Dog Meat (WPDCMT) are fully registered as seen hereto: http://forms.charitycommission.gov.uk/find-charities/
The following five part (informal article) has been printed due to the mass online campaign that is being run by various individuals from the United Kingdom, United States, Holland, France and Eastern Europe. The online campaign has in the past 3-4 weeks been asked by ourselves to provide (proof of their allegations). When asking for proof to try and bring the public fact or false information we and the main (CEO) was insulted, blocked, threatened, intimated, individuals not related to us were threatened, and intimidated, and images were stolen, defaced, subsequently being named as ‘frauds ourselves’. The only question that was asked was listed below highlighted for your information. Does this question sound unreasonable to you?
“Please would you be most kind to show proof of your allegations, or evidence to back your claims up that prove the charity in question has committed an act of fraud, historically or to-date”?
To date not a single individual that has plastered all over Twitter, and Facebook have shown a scrap of evidence. the only data they show is “maybes, if’s, buts, well’s, or allegations”. When we confronted the individuals calling fowl here, they stated that they had the evidence and was keeping it for the Charities Commission. However when one goes over their postings on Twitter, it clearly shows that regardless of whether they have evidence or not, they’ll still post whatever they like.
Peter Egan has been asked over 17 times to produce evidence relating to his allegation that the British charity above are defrauding the public. We’ll not post all 17 screenshots but do ask that you stay tuned to the actual site to see if any response is ever given.
Image: 17 times this question has been asked, still no answer?
Thank you.
Board of Directors
International Animal Rescue Foundation (Int)
speakupforthevoiceless
