I read the article too, I thought I must be missing something

It seems to me that not matter what they do, they can't win.
I don't see the problem of them running many tears like a business. Dogs are found suitable homes, looked after while they are at the rescue, what's the problem with that?

There is no wonder why more people don't go out of their way to do more for rescues and rescue dogs, people always think there is a hidden agenda. I just find it sad

Or god forbid, suspicion born of experience with that kind of thinking.

Along with the ability to critically evaluate people and their motives.

Of course, as I said earlier, I'm not saying its true.

But what exactly are you saying Tazer? Im just trying to understand.

The sh1t has hit the fan and they're running scared???

I dont see how the sh1t has hit the fan though? They are running it as a business but so what? I don't get why that's bad.

It's not, but they behave like a charity, which they aren't.

I actually don't really care, I'm more amused and curious than anything else.

But they obviously think more of the criticism than you, as they wouldn't have bother defending their position otherwise.

That criticism and not just of their business status could damage business.

Hence my pondering if the hacking claim was a ploy to rally support, as they need those people.

Oh I see what your getting at now....yeah maybe.

But I also think they have to defend themselves, they have many supporters and they are showing courtesy by explaining their actions. I neither support or am against them, it just seems odd to me why people are making such a fuss.

I agree ref defending themselves.

I disagree with a couple of their policies, but I'm no more for/against them than any other business/charity, with those rules/actions.

The business thing is an issue in the sence that, they collect and accept donations like a charity, but do not have to publicly account for where the publics money goes, unlike a reg charity...many people won't realise they aren't a charity when they see the collection tin in the street.

There is quite another agenda possible here, which is also topical.

Many people are working very hard to get puppy farms closed down but may take a dim view that MT willingly accept the worn-out, abused, mentally deficient ex-breeding dogs from PFs, and also any defective pups that can't be sold.

MT get those dogs on trust to save their lives, bound not to reveal their origins.

It is more than possible that animal welfare activists are unhappy with their no-disclosure policy, and would prefer it if MT took on no dogs at all from these business premises, OR grassed them up to the authorities.

There is also the ethics of taking dogs from Ireland, when we have so many in the UK needing homes. I can't comment on that as I took on a rescue dog last year, described as a stray, and a little while down the line it seems she may have come from Ireland. If pressed for comment, I would say thank god, she is fabulous and now living in luxury as a very happy do with a really good life...

It is hard to say whether she should have been brought from Ireland or not, or whether she took another rescue dog's place (not in my case as I was breed specific and not even looking at the time her case came up) but that's one life saved.

Which in the case of PFs would result in many, many more lives in continuous suffering? Of course it's horrid to imagine any animal suffering, but surely it's better to end all suffering forever than end some suffering now at the expense of many others in the future??