# APA claim that ASA adjudication was flawed



## Tarron (May 30, 2010)

And that the ASA apologized for this

Animal Protection Agency


----------



## Graham (Jan 27, 2007)

Nonsense, the ASA rulings were all based on the APA failing to adequately substantiate their claims, as anyone who bothers to read the ruling will see.

Apart from APA members and some of us I doubt many people will read this statement anyway!


----------



## boa (Mar 11, 2007)

3 minutes of my life I cant get back.


----------



## Row'n'Bud (Jun 13, 2010)

and the ASA apology is openly published ..........

WHERE ???

At least we still have the link to the ruling whereas their links appear to have vanished cleanly off their page so once again not a single shred of verifiable proof. 
Wonder if the ASA have seen this article yet ??


----------



## Tarron (May 30, 2010)

When I get to an actual computer, I'm got g to email a link to the ASA for their approval. I'm sure they wouldn't want lies spreading about them. I certainly don't think they would privately apologise without it being made public.

And if I is true, I Damn well want to know why lol


----------



## Lord Vetinari (Mar 4, 2011)

Interestingly I can't find a record of the ASA issuing an apology....ever.


----------



## George_Millett (Feb 26, 2009)

So does this mean that the APA are going to be forced into another retraction? And possibly held in contempt of the ruling the the ASA handed down the last time?


----------



## Graham (Jan 27, 2007)

I'm not sure how they would be held in contempt as the ASA ruling simply said they weren't to use the leaflets again in the same form, which of course they haven't done and probably won't. I'm sure the APA are aware that they can make statements like this latest one with impunity, the only good thing as far as we are concerned is that members of the general public, most of whom have no real interest in the subject, are unlikely to read any of the crap that the APA publishes on it's website, I'm sure it's mostly read by the APA's own membership!

They are and always will be a very small minority group, who's disproportionate success is largely due to the tactics they use of getting in first with local authorities and persuading them that they know what they are talking about, the result being that the council believes what they say, gets the jitters, and cancels shows wrongly thinking that they are illegal and that they will end up being taken to court if they allow them.


----------



## Tarron (May 30, 2010)

I've had a reply from the ASA,



> Dear Tarron,
> 
> Thanks for your email.
> 
> ...


Nothing I wasn't expecting, although I think it confirms that the APA are talking out of there rectal exit.

Graham, I understand where you are coming from. The everyday, uninterested public, will not come across the APA. But I believe that we could persuade many of the APAs members away, if we explained politely and coherently, that the organisation is not what they think. A few months a go, I contacted some members on Facebook, specifically ones with their own animals in their profile pictures, and explained how the APA operate. And to my knowledge, some were surprised by what I said and reconsidered membership. they may have lied to get rid of me, but I like to think I helped a little.

If we can make people aware that they are lying on their website, then its more ammo for our cause.


As for the ASA not being able to do anything about it. You are right, I knew from the start they would officially be able to look in to it, as its not advertisement (In fact, some complaints I made had an article followed by a donation button, and even that wasn't classed as advertisement, somehow) but the ASA may wish to inform the APA that they are misrepresenting them, and will ask the APA to remove the information. It may not be against advertising laws, but there must be rules against that sort of thing somewhere.


----------



## stevenrudge (Sep 3, 2009)

its not so much(the result being that the council believes what they say, gets the jitters, and cancels shows wrongly thinking that they are illegal and that they will end up being taken to court if they allow them.)Quote its more that they just do not need the hassle,l doubt if the APA have ever taken anybody to court,coursing trouble is enough for them,then using this publicity to raise funds,just the same as other publicity needing pressure groups,(highlight problems) course trouble preach to the converted on their own Webb/net /forums.it really do not matter how true the statements are,thats not the point,gullible people will believe whatever their told,some people will believe it because they want to or because it serves some purpose for them.We as a hobby really should not take much notice of most of the crap these AR groups come out with,most of do's not deserve our attention.


----------



## WYATT666 (Oct 1, 2012)

i would love to ask how many of the APA's members have dogs/cats as technically most of the pooches and cats in this country are exotic due to the fact that although they are bred here does not mean they should be here.


----------



## Tarron (May 30, 2010)

WYATT666 said:


> i would love to ask how many of the APA's members have dogs/cats as technically most of the pooches and cats in this country are exotic due to the fact that although they are bred here does not mean they should be here.


I have actually done this with some members from thier FB page. Not so much the dogs and cats, but the guinea pigs, chinchillas, etc.

Some, albeit very few unfortunately, saw the error they made and thanked me for the information. Others were dismissive and didnt reply.


----------



## Jack W (Feb 9, 2009)

Tarron said:


> I have actually done this with some members from thier FB page. Not so much the dogs and cats, but the guinea pigs, chinchillas, etc.
> 
> Some, albeit very few unfortunately, saw the error they made and thanked me for the information. Others were dismissive and didnt reply.


That is some good work mate. The hypocrisy of many is bewildering and would actually be quite comical if it were not so serious.


----------



## Tarron (May 30, 2010)

Jack W said:


> That is some good work mate. The hypocrisy of many is bewildering and would actually be quite comical if it were not so serious.


In fairness Jack, I don't think it is actually hypocrisy as such. I think these people have been misled in to thinking the APA will never have an issue with 'Domestic Animals' and some people just don't realise how much the APA want banned.
As soon as they find out that all pets are in danger, they change thier tune.

The APA et al are sneaky!

The old image of reptiles being slimy, evil etc doesnt help the cause either, but thats slowly changing.



(Off Topic, the 'W' doesnt stand for whitehall does it, that would be awesome!)


----------

