• Skip to main content

Search

Just another WordPress site

Burying pets in backyard legal

Lotus’s go pet-friendly shopping paw-tnership in 100 stores in Thailand

September 29, 2023 by thethaiger.com Leave a Comment

Photo vua Lotus’s

Popular supermarket chain Lotus’s announced the trial of a pet-friendly mall model allowing customers to shop alongside their beloved pets in 100 stores across the country.

The global trend of pet humanisation is growing, driven by pet owners who view their furry companions as family members or see themselves as their pets’ parents. These devoted pet parents spare no effort, both emotionally and financially, to ensure their pets’ well-being, akin to the care they provide to their offspring.

In response to this trend, Lotus’s has introduced pet-friendly brunches to welcome pets and their parents to shop together in the supermarket, creating a smart community that matches customers’ lifestyles.

To bring pets into the supermarket, pet parents must meet four conditions, including:

Related news

  • Lotus's go pet-friendly shopping paw-tnership in 100 stores in Thailand | News by Thaiger
    Mother Kali ceremony: Devotees flock to Kamphaeng Phet hoping for luck

    8 seconds ago

  • Lotus's go pet-friendly shopping paw-tnership in 100 stores in Thailand | News by Thaiger
    Thai Labour Minister pledges tailored minimum wage hike

    1 hour ago

  • Pets must be safely contained within a bag or a trolley.
  • Pet parents are responsible for providing an appropriate bag or cart for their furry companions.
  • Pets must not walk around inside Lotus’s.
  • Pets are not allowed in restaurants without a pet welcome restaurant sign.

This pioneering pet-friendly mall model is currently undergoing a trial run in 100 Lotus’s stores scattered throughout the country. For example, Lotus’s Chon Buri, Lotus’s Phuket , Lotus’s Chiang Mai , Lotus’s ICONSIAM, Lotus’s Pattaya , Lotus’s Roi Et, Lotus’s Yasothon, etc. The list of pet-friendly stores can be found here .

Other pet-friendly malls in Bangkok and surrounding areas are: the Central Festival EastVille, Mega Bangna, the Nine Rama 9, Habito Mall, the Commons Thonglor, the Circle Ratchapruk, Crystal Design Center (CDC), The EmQuartier, The Paseo Park Kanchanaphisek and K-Village.

Bangkok Governor Chatchart Sittipunt also supports the pet-friendly model as he announced the plan to create more pet-friendly public parks for all animal lovers to enjoy a relaxed atmosphere with their pets. Behjakitti Prak on Ratchadaphisek Road became the first new pet-friendly area, and more are expected to come.

  • Follow us on :

Discover more pet-friendly articles on The Thaiger below:

  • Have a furry friend? Here is a list of pet-friendly condos in Bangkok
  • Best pet-friendly hotels in Bangkok
  • Top 7 Places to Take Your Pet Dog in Bangkok
  • 6 places to take your pet for fun activities in Bangkok

Follow The Thaiger’s latest stories on our new Facebook page: CLICK HERE

Thailand News

Tags

Pets shopping mall Thailand

Filed Under: AseanNews Pets, shopping mall, Thailand, mqdc pet friendly, pet friendly hotels at sedona az, pet sitting 4 paws, drinkwell lotus pet fountain, lotus biscoff online shop, best pet insurance healthy paws, lotus scan and shop, lotus scan and shop app, lotus scan and shop malaysia, lotus scan and shop apk

‘You can’t cut the dog in half’: Pet custody disputes are making break-ups even messier

September 29, 2023 by www.independent.co.uk Leave a Comment

Stay ahead of the trend in fashion and beyond with our free weekly Lifestyle Edit newsletter

Stay ahead of the trend in fashion and beyond with our free weekly Lifestyle Edit newsletter

I t would be easier if my two dogs were dead,” Sophia* tells me. In April, after 10 years together, she and her partner split up, and Sophia lost custody of their two French bulldogs. “There is this weird grief knowing they are only 30 minutes away but I can’t see them.”

Sophia works in the accounts department of a London law firm, and left the dogs with her ex when she moved out of their home. They agreed to share the pets , but she says her partner “tried to seize sole ownership” almost immediately. “He blocked access – giving excuses all the time,” she says. “He would tell me, ‘the dogs have plans’. When he did let me see them, he’d claim the dogs had come back with injuries – and he had to take them to the vet.” Eventually, her ex cut all contact between her and the dogs. “He said [shared custody] wasn’t in the dogs’ best interests and he didn’t want to do it anymore … [but] they are my babies.”

Welcome to the brutal world of dog divorce, or what could happen if a couple doesn’t get a pet-nup – essentially a prenup for pets, legally stating who will get custody of shared animals in the event of a breakup. According to recent figures, fewer than one in 10 couples who own a dog together have put in place a shared custody agreement in the event of a possible split. Three in 10 couples also admit they’ve never had the conversation about who would keep the pet, according to a study for petcare marketplace Rover.

That might explain why even celebrities don’t seem immune to situations like these. In February it was reported that Ant McPartlin and Lisa Armstrong were fighting for custody of their chocolate labrador, Hurley, despite the pair splitting in 2018. Johnny Depp and Amber Heard famously battled over their terriers Pistol and Bo during their divorce in 2016; Heard got to keep the dogs after being granted custody. And it was recently reported that Britney Spears and her husband Sam Asghari – who announced their split earlier this year – have reached an agreement over the custody of the five dogs they shared together. That one at least seemed to be amicable.

More and more pet owners are also coming to realise a pet-nup might be essential, for under UK law, dogs and other animals are still classified as “chattels”. That means your cat, for example, has the exact same legal status as a washing machine or a car, so the courts aren’t interested in determining an outcome that would be in the pet’s best interest.

Recommended

  • Can a pet therapist cure my dog’s eating disorder?
  • I’m a jellyfish parent – my run-in with a tiger mum was terrifying
  • ‘You’re the most interesting person I’ve ever met, but…’: Is there ever a ‘right’ way to reject someone?

“The harsh reality is that the law views pets as assets, or possessions, which means that the courts will allocate an ‘owner’,” says Sarah Hawkins, CEO of National Family Mediation (NFM) in the UK. Over the last year, NFM has seen pets feature in 43 per cent of mediation matters, a result of the pandemic leading to a boom in pet ownership in the UK.

In the case of a pet custody battle, a court will try to establish ownership through evidence such as who bought the pet, whose name is recorded on the microchip database, or who is the pet’s primary carer. In most cases, though, it’s an incredibly tough situation to legally resolve.

Trevor Cooper, a solicitor with the UK’s Cooper and Co, specialises in dog law and says he gets four or five calls a day about ownership disputes. “The worst for us is the delay in the court system since Covid, because it prolongs the agony for the person who doesn’t have the dog,” he explains. “The wait time is currently just over a year.”

When standard mediation isn’t successful, Cooper says there are limited options in court. “It’s often a case of a jointly owned dog… and you can’t cut the dog in half,” he says. “An option is to order [the sale of the pet] and split the proceeds,” he says – as would happen with a painting, for example. “Or a court could hand sole custody to one party – but there is no rule of law as to how to determine this [if joint ownership is established]. The final option is a sharing arrangement – but this can only be approved by the court and is unlikely to be imposed by them.” So how do courts decide who keeps the pet? “It’s not an absolute rule of thumb”, he says, “but the longer one party has had the dog, the more likely they will be able to retain it.”

Cooper, however, would like to see the law changed to reflect “the importance of a family pet in our society now”, he says. “We have laws on how to resolve child custody disputes but not specific laws when it comes to dogs or cats. Pets are part of people’s families.”

If a couple doesn’t have a pet-nup in place, all hope isn’t lost. Amicably agreeing on joint custody can work out, as IT director Annie Snoode discovered with Astro, her eight-year-old shih tzu. Her relationship with her husband “fell apart” in 2020 after eight years and they now happily co-parent – albeit from different cities. “Astro is our child,” she says. “We were always aligned that we wanted the best for him – we took him with us on all of our holidays.”

Together, Snoode and her former husband share Astro for three to six months at a time. But Snoode has also since remarried, which has slightly complicated matters. They can no longer help each other with day-to-day dog care, meaning Snoode has to “juggle a lot more”, she says.

While a pet divorce can create chaos between two exes, it’s also not easy on the pet themselves. Victoria Stilwell, a dog trainer and behaviourist and the star of Channel 4’s The Dog Academy and Discovery+’s It’s Me or the Dog , says she often deals with the fallout of dog divorce.

“If you are separated or preparing for a divorce and are sharing custody of a dog, it is really important that the dog’s best interests are taken into consideration and the dog is given time to get used to living in different homes,” she explains. “Most dogs are sensitive to human emotions and will likely be impacted pre- and post-separation and divorce, especially if tensions have been high before the split.

“They do and will pick up on how each person feels and this can be quite stressful for them.” Living in two different homes is made easier, she adds, if similar routines are kept in both places and certain items – such as a favourite bed or a favourite toy – can be bounced between houses along with them.

As for Sophia, since discovering the existence of “chattel” law, she has reluctantly decided to walk away from her former dogs. Her only options were to “dognap” the pets, or go to a small claims court, which can cost between £7,000 to £10,000 with legal representation. Neither was realistic for her.

Recommended

  • Fans call out ‘double standard’ over Kate Middleton and Meghan Markle’s hair
  • Helena Christensen says she has no interest in being in a supermodel documentary
  • Fans point out possible spelling error in Cara Delevingne’s new tattoo

“I was told in most cases they would rule in his favour because they lived with him,” she says, adding that she believed her ex had taken the pets as a way to hurt her. “I gave him the car, I let him stay in the house – I just wanted the dogs. They were the only things I cared about losing.”

*names have been changed

Filed Under: Uncategorized Lifestyle, wag how to break up a dog fight, how to make dog throw up, how to make dogs throw up, how to make a dog throw up

Discovery of Suzanne Morphew’s body raises new legal questions in 3-year-old case

September 28, 2023 by www.denverpost.com Leave a Comment

The discovery of Suzanne Morphew’s body more than three years after the 49-year-old mother disappeared from her Chaffee County home could be the key to unraveling the mystery of what happened to her — but the dropped prosecution of her husband thrusts the case into complicated legal territory, experts told The Denver Post on Thursday.

Who should be charged, which prosecutor’s office should pursue the case and whether that initial attempt at a prosecution might hobble a second try are all up for debate, they said.

“This whole situation presents many novel issues that are fascinating from a legal perspective,” said Doug Richards, a Denver defense attorney not involved in the case.

Colorado Bureau of Investigation agents found Morphew’s remains on Sept. 22 near Moffat in Saguache County, about a 45-minute drive from her home in Maysville, where she was last seen alive before she was reported missing on May 10, 2020. Her husband, 55-year-old Barry Morphew, was charged with first-degree murder a year after she disappeared.

Prosecutors with 11th Judicial District Attorney Linda Stanley’s office alleged Barry Morphew killed his wife on the evening of May 9, 2020, after discovering her nearly 2-year extramarital affair , then disposed of her body and staged a bike crash before leaving early the next day to work in Broomfield. Morphew maintained he left his wife asleep in bed on the morning she disappeared and has argued she was abducted or ran away.

Stanley dropped all charges against Barry Morphew in April 2022 after prosecutors egregiously violated discovery rules and then-Fremont County District Court Judge Ramsey Lama blocked the prosecution from using most of its expert witnesses at trial as punishment.

Iris Eytan, Barry Morphew’s attorney, said Thursday that Suzanne Morphew’s remains were found in a shallow grave in a field as authorities searched for another missing woman. CBI spokeswoman Lisa Kohlbrenner would not confirm or deny those details.

Eytan said the new evidence strengthens Barry Morphew’s long-held claims of innocence.

“We hope the authorities will quickly admit their wrongful persecution of Barry, an innocent man, treat the Morphews like the victims they are and charge the person(s) responsible for Suzanne’s killing,” she said in a statement Wednesday.

New evidence

Suzanne Morphew’s body was not where prosecutors thought it would be.

When Stanley asked to drop the case against Barry Morphew in April 2022, she wrote in court filings that investigators believed they were close to finding Suzanne Morphew’s body, and that they were searching a “mountainous region” near Barry Morphew’s home that was at the time buried under five feet of snow.

The area around Moffat, where Suzanne Morphew’s remains were found, is a flat plain, tucked between two distant lines of mountains. The town is 45 miles south of the Morphew home. In April 2022, the area around Moffat was experiencing high temperatures in the 70s and little snowfall, according to the National Weather Service at Pueblo.

What that means for the case remains to be seen, said former Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett, who is not involved in the investigation.

“The issue — and it’s impossible to know this from the outside — is what is the other evidence, and how does the location of this body and whatever evidence they gained from finding a body fit into the theory of the prosecution,” he said.

But Eytan argued that the body’s location suggests Barry Morphew did not kill his wife.

“At no time did the FBI, CBI, Chaffee County Sheriff Office or DA’s office pinpoint or even generally claim that Barry was in any area south of his home, near Moffat or anywhere near Saguache County at any relevant time frame,” she said. “It would be ludicrous for anyone to now try to fit the now-known facts to prior false assumptions and accusations.”

During Barry Morphew’s preliminary hearing, prosecutors presented evidence that his truck was used around 3:30 a.m. on May 10, and that his cellphone appeared to move into the area where his wife’s abandoned bicycle was found, though the phone’s data was inconclusive because of poor cell coverage in the area. His wife’s phone last pinged at 4:23 a.m. that day.

The hearing also included testimony that Barry Morphew had scratches on his arm that appeared to be injuries from fingernails after Suzanne Morphew disappeared, and that the couple’s marriage was troubled.

The preliminary hearing did not include evidence to show Barry Morphew drove south that night.

“Law enforcement officials that were supposedly looking for Suzanne were never looking for Suzanne in the Moffat area or the area south of Maysville, because they only focused in on Barry being the suspect,” Eytan said in a statement Thursday. “And they knew Barry was not south of Maysville, and certainly not 45 miles south.”

When considering whether the evidence now points to Barry Morphew or another suspect, the prosecution and law enforcement are likely to proceed carefully, said Colin McCallin, a criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor who is not involved in the case.

“If there was a lesson to be learned, it’s that the initial prosecution was rushed,” he said. “No two ways about it. They made a charging decision without the benefit of having a body, without a crime scene, without a murder weapon — it was a very difficult prosecution from the very beginning… I would absolutely expect the district attorney’s office and CBI to move very methodically here. The last thing they want to do is charge anyone, much less Mr. Morphew again, just to see the case get dismissed because they’re not quite ready.”

Who takes the case?

Because Suzanne Morphew’s body was found across county lines, there’s a jurisdictional question about which district attorney’s office will prosecute the case.

The body was discovered in Saguache County — the 12th Judicial District — so 12th Judicial District Attorney Anne Kelley could take the case. But the case has deep ties to locations in the 11th Judicial District, where Stanley is district attorney, so she could also lay claim to it, Garnett said.

“Normally district attorneys work that out among themselves,” he said. “…You just get together and say, ‘Which office has the most direct connection in this case?’ And that is usually the one who does it… Given all the problems that they’ve had with getting this case prosecuted in the 11th Judicial District, someone might say, ‘We should let the other DA’s office do it, because they don’t have the same baggage.’”

Megan Bagwell, with the 12th Judicial District Attorney’s Office, said Wednesday that prosecutors had not decided which jurisdiction will take the lead now.

Which office takes the case could make a big difference should prosecutors once again file charges against Barry Morphew, McCallin said.

The sanctions that the judge levied against Stanley during the first prosecution might carry over into a new case against Barry Morphew, McCallin said, and Morphew’s defense team could seek to block the same expert witnesses from testifying.

“I think his defense team can attempt to say, ‘We want to abide by rulings in the previous case’ …especially since (the witnesses) were excluded due to misconduct by the district attorney’s office,” McCallin said. “But the prosecution can counter that by saying, ‘Well that prosecution was being handled by a different office, that prosecution was hampered by the fact a body wasn’t found.’ The prosecution is going to have a good argument to say, ‘Look, the game has totally changed.’”

That argument is stronger if Stanley’s office isn’t the one prosecuting the case, McCallin added.

“I can also see a scenario where there is information learned from the body related to the autopsy, manner of death — if they are able to use any information to tie the crime to a different county, this could end up back with Linda Stanley, which I think, would be a problem, given the history of this case,” he said.

Barry Morphew has a $15 million federal civil rights lawsuit pending against Stanley and local authorities over the dropped murder prosecution. He claims his constitutional rights were violated and that authorities conspired to wrongly arrest him, fabricated evidence and concealed exculpatory evidence.

The federal lawsuit could continue even if Morphew is once again charged with his wife’s murder, McCallin said.

“I think his attorneys will argue it doesn’t matter if he ends up getting charged in a different jurisdiction, his rights were still violated, he was still held in custody for several months in a case where prosecutors withheld or misrepresented evidence,” he said.

Eytan said Thursday that she believes CBI , local law enforcement and the 11th District Attorney’s Office all have conflicts of interest in the case and should not investigate Suzanne Morphew’s death further.

“An objective and unbiased examination of Suzanne’s death can only be conducted by an outside and independent team of investigators,” she said.

Denver Post staff writer Katie Langford contributed to this report.

Sign up to get crime news sent straight to your inbox each day.

Filed Under: Uncategorized korean 8 year old case, humans of new york 13 year old grim reaper, new school 5 year old, delhi 9 year old case, hyderabad 6 year old case, new hampshire 8 year old, new hampshire 9 year old, sophie 9 year old case, raising voice at 1 year old, raising voice at 2 year old

The Voice campaign has generated much misinformation. Here it is, debunked, all in one place

September 28, 2023 by www.abc.net.au Leave a Comment

With early voting set to open next week, the torrent of misinformation surrounding the Voice to Parliament referendum shows no sign of letting up.

The debate has witnessed all manner of misleading claims, which have spread like wildfire on social media and left voters in a haze of fear, anger and confusion.

Fact checkers have scrutinised both sides of the debate , though many claims are simply beyond the scope of what can be checked.

But there has been no shortage of problematic claims.

So, to help you navigate the campaign’s final fortnight, we’ve rounded up some key themes of misinformation.

Secret agendas

Some of the debate’s most pervasive claims warned of hidden plans to hoodwink voters, often centred on supposedly “secret” information.

For example, a 112-page set of documents released under freedom of information (FOI) laws by the National Indigenous Australians Agency has been frequently used to falsely assert that a list of “demands” from the Indigenous community will be realised if the Voice is established.

One Nation senator Pauline Hanson, too, has trumpeted a separate list of “demands”, allegedly found in a cafe by an anonymous member of the public.

If these sets of claims were to be believed, the Voice would lead to a “black parliament”, quotas for First Nations representation in various senior roles and lower tax rates for Indigenous people. Not only that, it would “force” Australians to sign a treaty, pay a percentage of GDP to the Voice every year and pay additional land tax and royalties.

But what the documents actually show are the minutes of 13 regional meetings held in the lead-up to the 2017 Uluru convention, documenting the full gamut of ideas raised by any one of the 1,200 delegates as they discussed what constitutional recognition might look like.

There is no evidence some of the above ideas were ever raised, and while others were discussed (some as alternatives to a Voice), they do not reflect the majority view.

Moreover, the Voice wouldn’t have power to impose such plans, because its role is to provide advice, not create laws or veto government decisions .

Another supposed big reveal from the FOI documents was the “real” Uluru Statement from the Heart, which some commentators have claimed was not the one-pager signed by convention delegates but a longer version kept hidden from voters.

As Fact Check has previously explained , while the authors of the Uluru Statement have at times referred to a longer, 18-20 page version, they have since stated that they consider these additional pages to be contextual information.

However, the length is beside the point, because those pages were hardly secret.

In fact, the statement’s drafters have been urging the public to read them for years: many of them can be easily found on the Uluru Statement website ( under the header, “Our story” ), while these and a set of “guiding principles” and “reform priorities” for constitutional recognition were also published in the Referendum Council’s final report, in 2017.

An additional six pages within the FOI release, which had not previously been published, contain a pragmatic “roadmap” for realising the goals of the one-page Uluru Statement.

As for who is behind these “secret” agendas, well, that depends on who you ask.

Some blame communists , often suggesting the political views of individual Yes campaigners represent all the Indigenous people who would make up the yet-to-be-constituted Voice.

Other conspiracy theories say it is the World Economic Forum or the United Nations, which plans to seize private property and declare a totalitarian republic.

Antisemitism has also reared its head, with some social media posts asserting that the Voice is a Jewish plot.

That’s despite the Voice concept having been endorsed by hundreds of Indigenous leaders , fleshed out by Indigenous academics and promoted by Indigenous Australians as early as 100 years ago.

And, as experts told Fact Check , the limited polling available also suggests that a majority of First Nations people supported the Voice in March this year.

Stacked decks

A worrying number of Australians appear convinced the referendum process has been rigged, with the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) reporting a surge in misinformation and threats against its staff.

On its disinformation register , the AEC has had to explain that there will not be “two questions” on the ballot, for example, nor will it be throwing out No votes.

For its part, Labor has been variously accused of handing out “bribes” and of funding the Yes campaign — including the cost of John Farnham’s soundtrack — despite it being illegal for the government to spend money to promote either side.

Fact Check has seen no evidence to support such claims, nor those asserting the Yes campaign received favourable treatment when it came to tax deductible donations.

The No campaign was, in fact, granted deductible gift recipient status far quicker than its rival following its application, with any delays more likely attributed to its own “fumbles”.

It is unlikely that faith in the referendum’s outcome has been bolstered by criticism of the AEC’s decision to count ticks as Yes votes but not crosses as Noes.

This approach, which rests on longstanding practice and legal advice that considers crosses to be ambiguous, has now been upheld by the Federal Court.

In any event, the AEC has explained, voters are required to write either “yes” or “no” on the ballot to ensure their vote is counted.

Context-light claims

A key theme to emerge during the campaign was the tendency of campaigners to strip information of vital context in order to attack the other side.

Indigenous businessman and leading No campaigner Warren Mundine faced an onslaught of criticism for having supposedly backflipped on his support for a Voice to Parliament, with social media users pointing to statements made in 2017 that appeared to show him backing the proposal.

However, as Fact Check found , some of these quotes excluded the part where Mr Mundine attributed the apparent support to leading Yes campaigner Noel Pearson.

The tactic was also adopted by the conservative lobby group Advance, which ran parallel advertising campaigns arguing that the Voice went too far (via Fair Australia) yet not far enough (via The Voice is Not Enough).

In one ad, the group selectively quoted an Indigenous activist as saying she was “unconvinced” by the Voice proposal, despite her essay also explaining that she was not “committed to a No vote either”.

Another ad sought to link Western Australia’s unrelated and since-repealed cultural heritage laws to the Voice by quoting state premier Roger Cook out of context .

Mr Cook had indeed said the WA laws would “do the same thing” as the Voice — in that they would “respect, acknowledge and consult” — but also made clear the two issues were separate.

More recently, social media users have quoted Referendum Council co-chair and Voice advocate Pat Anderson as saying the proposed body, if established, would “share power” with parliament.

In the very same discussion, however, she said the Voice’s role could only ever be advisory, while the sovereignty of the parliament “can’t be questioned”.

Land grabs

Reminiscent of past scare campaigns, some landowners have been spooked over issues of land rights. This includes, for example, the suggestion they would be forced to pay 1 per cent of income as “rent” to local Aboriginal councils.

References to a “race-based rent tax” or “paying the rent” have at various times been mixed up with a private, Indigenous-led scheme put into practice since the 1970s.

That scheme has nothing to do with government, however: it simply allows people to voluntarily make donations to support Indigenous people and projects.

Tapping into fears about WA’s now-repealed cultural heritage laws, voters were told the Voice “will be this ten-fold”.

The WA laws required landowners to check for Aboriginal cultural heritage before clearing land but, crucially, were a state-government initiative, unrelated to the Voice.

By that stage, the WA debate was hopelessly mired amid complex rules and false claims that landowners would no longer be able to install swimming pools, build garages or even bury their pets in the backyard.

Separately, experts were forced to dispel “ludicrous” claims the Voice would convert all land to native title, despite it being legally impossible on privately owned properties.

And leading No campaigner Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price was unwittingly roped into similarly outlandish theories. As AAP FactCheck has reported , the senator was wrongly credited for a letter that falsely claimed a successful Yes vote would mean Australians “will no longer own their homes”.

It wasn’t the only case of fraudulent letters, with households in Melbourne’s northern suburbs receiving one falsely linked to the People’s Assembly of Victoria with a warning to seek legal advice before “the next phase of reacquiring land”.

Mistaken identities

There were some notable errors when it came to pinning actions and opinions on the right people.

This included claims that the grandson of famed Indigenous land rights activist Vincent Lingiari was voting No in the referendum.

But Stewart Lingiari, a Millwarparra man from Ngukurr in the Northern Territory, whose photo was incorporated into advertisements opposing the Voice, said at the time that he was unsure of his stance on the proposal.

Moreover, he said: “I’m nowhere near Vincent Lingiari. I’m not his grandson.”

In another case of mistaken identity, AAP FactCheck has reported how social media users wrongly blamed leading Yes campaigner Thomas Mayo for ordering someone to “sit down and shut up” during a community forum.

Audio from the event revealed that the man was not told to “shut up” at all , and was asked to sit down by a female Aboriginal elder.

Big, bad numbers

There have been plenty of exaggerations during the campaign.

Many such claims related to the current state of Aboriginal affairs, with some suggesting that First Nations people already had enough of a “voice”, land or money.

In an interview with Channel Ten’s The Project, for example, octogenarian singer Kamahl claimed the government already gives “$40 billion a year to the Indigenous people”.

“What are they doing with it?” he asked.

Fact Check has previously addressed claims about $33 billion in spending, which social media users have attributed to spending on “dedicated Indigenous bodies”.

The fact is, the figure relates to all “direct expenditure” on Indigenous Australians by state, territory and federal governments.

For comparison, $556.1 billion was spent on non-Indigenous Australians.

The eye-watering numbers reflect spending on everything from hospitals to public education and national defence, whereas spending on dedicated services and programs for Indigenous people was closer to $6 billion (1.1 per cent of direct expenditure).

It’s worth noting that these figures relate to 2015-16, with the $40 billion estimate assuming that spending has kept pace with inflation since then.

Looking at other big numbers, social media users have claimed that Indigenous people already have hundreds, sometimes thousands, of “voices”.

However, such lists are wildly inaccurate , given they tally up local health organisations, Indigenous-owned corporations (including construction companies and sports clubs) and even music awards.

Other lists include non-existent and overseas agencies, along with the National Indigenous Australians Agency, which serves a different function to the would-be Voice.

The powers that (might) be

Claims about the powers of the Voice started long before formal campaigning began.

This includes a classic of the genre, that the body would constitute a “third chamber” of parliament. Constitutional and legal experts have weighed in on this question , however, explaining that its role would be advisory only, and not confer any power of veto.

Meanwhile, some opponents have argued we need only look to New Zealand to see the pitfalls of a “Māori Voice”, which has allegedly grown from being an advisory body to become more powerful than parliament itself.

But this slippery slope argument doesn’t hold water. For one thing, New Zealand established its Waitangi Tribunal specifically to adjudicate on breaches of the country’s foundational treaty, something Australia doesn’t have.

Moreover, as legal experts have confirmed, its powers have not been broadened by the courts, and its recommendations remain non-binding on the government ( except in prescribed circumstances ).

Going the other way, some have sought to minimise the role of the Voice, such as when Minister for Indigenous Australians Linda Burney sought to reassure voters that the body would not give advice on moving Australia Day.

There is, of course, no way to know whether the Voice would choose to spend its political capital on such advice, but experts said that, legally speaking, there was nothing to prevent it from doing so.

RMIT’s CrossCheck team has summarised some of the key legal arguments around the Voice, explaining how certain claims about the validity of government decisions will ultimately be determined by the High Court.

Some legal experts, such as former High Court justice Ian Callinan, have expressed concerns about the wording of the proposed constitutional amendment.

However, a substantial group of legal experts have argued that the proposal is legally sound and presents little risk of clogging up the courts.

They include the Law Society of Australia , the Commonwealth Solicitor General and former High Court justices Kenneth Hayne and Robert French.

The Constitutional Expert Group advising the government was unanimously of the view that the Voice would not give “special rights”, nor would it grant the power to make demands or invalidate legislation through the courts.

At the same time, it said that if the government chose to legislate that certain decisions required prior consultation of the Voice, those decisions could be ruled invalid — and have to be remade — if consultation was not appropriately sought.

Referendums past

The debate has featured various claims about the successful 1967 referendum, when Australians voted on constitutional changes affecting First Nations people.

For example, social media users recently revived the myth that Aboriginal people were once classified under a “flora and fauna” act, which in reality never existed .

Others have argued the Voice will reinsert “race” into the constitution after it was removed in 1967.

That’s despite the word still appearing twice in the document — most notably in section 51(xxvi) , which allows the government to make laws “for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to … the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws”.

And there have also been claims about whether Aboriginal people were “counted” by the census before 1967.

But whether they were counted depends entirely on the meaning being ascribed to the word: Aboriginal people have been enumerated at every census since federation, but they were also excluded from the final population estimates if they were deemed to be more than “half” Aboriginal.

In short, they were counted differently to other Australians, and, by one reading, not “counted” as part of the population.

Principal researchers: Ellen McCutchan and David Campbell

Got a fact that needs checking? Tweet us @ABCFactCheck or send us an email at [email protected]

Loading…

If you’re unable to load the form, you can access it here .

Posted 6h ago 6 hours ago Thu 28 Sep 2023 at 10:05pm , updated 4h ago 4 hours ago Thu 28 Sep 2023 at 11:38pm

Filed Under: Uncategorized what voiced consonant has the same place of articulation as t, campaigning near a polling place georgia, debunk place, generation j secret place, voice ai generator, voice ai generator free, voice of generation x, voice of generation z, generation earth a place to live, voice tag generator

Half of all XL Bully dogs in Britain descend from ‘Killer Kimbo’

September 14, 2023 by www.telegraph.co.uk Leave a Comment

Half of XL bully dogs in Britain are descendants of one “killer” inbred pet from the United States that has produced generations of violent animals, it can be revealed.

Extensive genealogy research seen by The Telegraph shows how decades of inbreeding has created a narrow gene pool of unstable fighting dogs that have become responsible for 70 per cent of dog attack deaths in Britain.

XL Bullies are now among the most fashionable breeds in the country, with puppies selling for more than £2,500 to families who are told that they are placid pets that are safe around children.

But ministers are concerned by a series of high-profile incidents in which the dogs have attacked strangers in the street, mauled toddlers and torn apart other pets.

After a video posted online showed an XL Bully attacking 11-year-old Ana Paun and two men who tried to defend her, Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, announced that she is considering an outright ban .

Researchers have now identified one dog from Los Angeles that may be responsible for dozens of violent incidents.

Publicly available pedigrees of British “stud” dogs, used for breeding, show that half of pets on the market are descended from the dog “UKC’s Most Wanted Kimbo”, known by breeders as “Killer Kimbo”.

Kimbo’s size and strength, produced through generations of inbred fighting dogs, has given it legendary status in the XL Bully community.

Gustavo Castro, the dog’s breeder, grew up and lives in the Huntington Park neighbourhood of Los Angeles. His Facebook page shows pictures of him lifting the dog and it sitting on his sofa.

Kimbo was the product of two dogs from the same parents, and is thought to have bred hundreds of XL Bully puppies, passing on an extremely narrow gene pool that experts have warned can make dogs unstable and cause genetic diseases.

Researchers from BullyWatch, a campaign group, say that dogs related to “Killer Kimbo” are responsible for at least 10 violent incidents worldwide, with dozens more impossible to trace.

The Telegraph can reveal that the death of Keven Jones, a 65-year-old former lorry driver from Wrexham, was caused by a dog linked to Kimbo.

Mr Jones died of blood loss after a dog bite in May last year from his son’s XL Bully, named Cookie Doe, which was related to Kimbo on both sides of its family.

Deaths attributed to the dog’s descendants also include Mia Derouen, four, who was mauled at her home in Louisiana in 2014 by Niko, an XL Bully bred directly from Kimbo.

Doctors were unable to save Mia, who was locked in a bathroom with her mother to protect her from the out-of-control dog. When police arrived, it took 12 rounds of bullets to kill the animal.

The same fate befell an 82-year-old woman in Oklahoma in 2017, who was mauled by another dog believed to have been related to Kimbo while out for a walk near her home.

Gloria Zsigmond, a UK-based scientist and campaigner for BullyWatch, has dedicated hundreds of hours to researching XL Bully dogs in Britain.

She told The Telegraph she was concerned by the number of dogs related to an animal with a history of violence in its bloodline.

Using family trees uploaded by breeders, she found that more than half of a sample of 50 stud dogs advertised online were descendants of Kimbo.

“A lot of the time, the Bully breeders are trying to hide how inbred the dogs are,” she told The Telegraph.

“Kimbo bled into all those bloodlines because he was early on and he was so dominant in breeding. There are some good bloodlines where Kimbo isn’t there, but there are many where he is.”

Her research shows that of the 50 breeding dogs, 32 were related to Kimbo.

“Kimbo’s offspring became very, very popular and they’re still so popular in the UK to this day,” she said. “It’s extremely troubling.”

One stud from Croydon is related to Kimbo on both sides of its family, while another in South London has Frank Sinatra as both its maternal and paternal grandfather.

“[Kimbo] is a real notorious one,” said Colleen Lynn, founder of the non-profit group DogsBite. “If you look at the pedigrees of the American Bullies that have killed in the US, that dog is in there.”

There is similar concern among some breeders. Andre Smith, owner of the Los Angeles-based Big Gemini Kennels, said that Kimbo’s owner should have stopped breeding the dog once the first attacks were reported.

“Kimbo is known amongst a lot of the breeders as ‘Killer Kimbo’ because his offspring have been documented to carry a rage that is not normal in the XL American Bully breed,” he told the Telegraph.

“There have been kids that [were killed] by his dogs. “

Mr Castro could not be reached for comment at his California home.

The dominance of one dog in the ancestry of violent animals in Britain was caused by the rapid expansion of the breed in the United States.

American Bullies were created on the west coast of America in the early 1990s, by breeding American Staffordshire terriers and American pit bull terriers – both of which are illegal in the UK under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

The breed became popular with Los Angeles rappers, who showed off their powerful pets in music videos, and among basketball and American football players.

Realising the popularity of their creation, breeders worked to exploit the trend by producing different colours and sizes, including the infamous “XL”.

American Bullies were first imported into the UK in 2015 by Noble Welch, a breeder who admits there is a “fine line” between the breed and pitbull terriers.

He claims to have fought several court cases to overturn a ruling that American Bullies were “pitbull-type” dogs already covered by the Dangerous Dogs Act.

Since then, breeding American Bullies has become a multimillion-pound industry, with dogs and their frozen sperm flown all over the world to breeders obsessed with their dogs’ “bloodlines”.

A popular stud dog can be rented for thousands of pounds each time to “backyard breeders” in Britain who produce XL Bullies for sale in their own homes and sell them online on unregulated websites.

Kimbo was among the first to become a prolific breeding dog across the world, as the craze for powerful pitbull-type dogs spread.

Although the dogs are not recognised by the American Kennel Club, owners groups and fan clubs quickly grew into an official American Bully Kennel Club, which was founded by Dave Wilson.

Mr Wilson is widely credited with producing some of the first American Bullies at his kennel, Razor’s Edge, and said that they were no more dangerous than other breeds.

“Statistically, it doesn’t add up,” he told The Telegraph. “There are no actual statistics that tell you this is an aggressive dog, because the numbers alone show to you that this dog is not aggressive.”

But so far this year, almost half of injuries from dog attacks were by the breed, which make up about 1 per cent of the UK’s dog population – making them around 270 times more deadly than the average dog.

“This is exactly what you’d expect from a fighting breed that has been inbred repeatedly for exotic styles, colours and sizes,” said Dr Lawrence Newport, a legal academic who supports a ban on the dogs.

“We found this, of course, to our terrible cost.

“It has only been a few years since we’ve allowed a single pitbull-cross into the country. And the effects have been very immediate and devastating.”

On Thursday, a British dog-walker said that he backed a ban on the XL Bully after one savaged his cocker spaniel-dachshund.

“I’m a dog lover, but these aren’t dogs,” said Leo Wolfe.

Filed Under: Uncategorized California, UK News, Standard, Dogs, World News, Los Angeles, US News, Dog bite, Suella Braverman, US content, Birmingham, bullies dog xl, dog walker xl bully, american xl bully dog

Copyright © 2023 Search. Power by Wordpress.
Home - About Us - Contact Us - Disclaimers - DMCA - Privacy Policy - Submit your story