~ ‘It is somewhat of a paradox that money, undoubtedly the most sought after resource driving charitable activity, is also potentially the most veiled once it leaves donors’ hands’ ~ Katherine Smithson of the Charity Finance Group
People worldwide gave generously for Mrs Yang (Yang Xiao Yun (杨晓芸) because they were told by the charity, ‘WORLD PROTECTION FOR DOGS AND CATS IN THE MEAT TRADE’ (WPDCMT) AKA ‘No To Dog Meat’ (NTDM), and via many different media sources throughout the world, how dreadfully she was struggling in dire circumstances to give sanctuary to her rescues.
“The charity utilised Mrs Yang’s identity, images, persona and international reputation as a rescuer of dogs from the Yulin dog meat festival (held in China on the summer solstice), to call specifically for donations for her and her shelter.” (quote from the petition)
In addition to the appeal for Mrs Yang on ‘Total Giving’ “the charity also invited their social media following to donate for Mrs Yang via the charity’s own website donation portal” (quote from the petition)
One donor confirmed that she had sent £5000 GBP directly to the charity CEO for the Mrs Yang appeal.
Nearly 2 years later, where Mrs Yang’s fund has been spent remains a mystery as the charity trustees and the Charity Commission for England and Wales continue to ignore appeals for transparency over this contentious fundraiser.
Visitors to this site will know that since the charity trustees made a (one day in August 2015?) visit to Mrs Yang’s temporary premises, in a derelict apartment complex, others have visited Mrs Yang and reported on her situation.
The two charity trustees claim to have seen many suffering dogs in immediate need but decided to turn their back on Mrs Yang’s tragic dogs, refused financial help and insisted that their charity retain the restricted fund for ‘other purposes’.
The two trustees (and friends) then flew to Los Angeles for a celebrity fundraiser for their charity.
Later appeals from the leader of a small group of ‘Friends of Yang’ (during her two trips to China to work alongside Mrs Yang) for the charity to release funds for immediate veterinary care fell on deaf ears.
The charity trustees reportedly told obliging Charity Commission employees, that the fund had failed, refused to refund the donors, and proceeded to trash the reputation of Mrs Yang in defence of their actions over social media, and, in a disgraceful very late ‘report’ (November 2015) on their website. The admin of the many FB pages for the charity have successfully managed to keep the Mrs Yang fund saga hidden from thousands of their FB supporters. A call was recently made for the charity to delete images of Mrs Yang it has continued to use as publicity posters.
Many donors remain in blissful ignorance of the situation; that their money never reached Mrs Yang. Donors who were alerted have been shunned by the charity and fobbed off by the Charity Commission when they complained.
Agents of the charity launched cyber-attacks on individuals speaking out for Mrs Yang, these attacks continue today. The CEO of the charity has been reported to have physically stalked certain individuals to their home and places of work, sending crackpot letters to their employers. One such written communication from the CEO threatened an employer that his business would suffer repercussions if he didn’t fire her victim.
“Why has the Charity Commission for England and Wales chosen to hide how a restricted fundraiser that went viral on TotalGiving, created in the name of a Chinese dog & cat rescuer, Yang Xiao Yun (杨晓芸), was spent? The (90%+) majority of which never reached the beneficiary?
It is now increasingly impossible to conclude other than the Charity Commission for England and Wales, in spite of many complaints, have colluded with the charity UK registered charity, #1154524 ‘WORLD PROTECTION FOR DOGS AND CATS IN THE MEAT TRADE’ (WPDCMT) AKA ‘No To Dog Meat’ (NTDM), to blatantly stick two fingers in the air at donors and the public. The charity’s detailed Profit and Loss account on the CC portal has been concealed. That the restricted fund for Mrs Yang, the Chinese rescuer of dogs and cats, was spent ‘for other purposes’ is no longer in doubt. However, why is the CC hiding how/where it was spent?
We refer you to: http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/…/0001154524_AC_201605… where, for reasons best known to the Charity Commission for England and Wales, the final page (detailed Profit and Loss Statement) of submitted accounts has been omitted. And, also of note, the firm of independent examiner of the accounts states that it is unable to verify that the financial statements present a “true and fair view” relying only on explanations of the trustees.
Friends of Yang leaders, one of whom is Victoria Charlotte, challenged by the UK charity, have visited Mrs Yang on several occasions to investigate the disgraceful accusations circulated by the charity to defend their greed. The Charity Commission for England and Wales continue to ignore representation on behalf of Mrs Yang.
NB: With no disrespect to the independent examiners…….. they haven’t even accurately reported the amount of the Mrs Yang restricted fund in the financial period 25th May 2015 to 24th May 2016 which was on Total Giving alone (see screen grab) already standing, excluding Gift Aid and less Paypal charges, in February 2016, at £86,259 GB?” [sic]
Screen grab of the running total on TotalGiving Platform in February 2016. The fund continues to increment
*It is important to note that some donors set up monthly amounts to be sent to the charity for this cause and these monthly amounts are continuing to add to this restricted fund.
All monies are directed straight to the charity. The Total Giving company Raise Your Profile Ltd do not hold any monies for any period of time for any fundraiser.
Detailed breakdown of Expenditure not supplied on the CC online portal.
“For those new to the case of the restricted fund naming Mrs Yang as beneficiary, Sophie Ling a dedicated and prominent volunteer for the UK charity resigned when the charity head insisted on tampering with the fund mission statement as the proceeds grew. Exactly why the Charity Commission for England and Wales have resisted addressing the multitude of complaints made about the UK charity purloining the restricted fund, and its reprehensible behavior bringing charity into disrepute, remains a complete mystery. That one woman, the head of the charity, has cajoled employees of the Charity Commission for England and Wales into accepting her machinations while ignoring complaints about her charity going back as far as 2013 (when a resigning trustee reports she lodged a complaint to the CC) can only be viewed as highly suspicious.” (The Yes And Now Group)
Other fundraisers created (http://www.totalgiving.co.uk/charity/notodogmeat) on behalf of the charity, calling itself on the Total Giving fundraising platform, NO TO DOG MEAT FOUNDATION, have not fared so well. The largest amount raised for the charity on Total Giving, on any one appeal, was £5155 GBP. It has taken the charity nearly two years to raise £1957 GBP, without Mrs Yang as a poster figure, on an appeal for dog meat trade dogs & cats.
Mrs Yang exhausted all her family’s wealth on rescuing cats and dogs and now is deep in debt as her tormentors, with cynical disregard for the welfare of her animals, seek to crush her spirit.
Mrs Yang is not the first victim, and the signs are she will not be the last, to fall foul in China of what has become a competitive business to exploit, under the guise of charity, the hideous trade in stolen dogs and cats for meat and fur.
Times have always been hard for Mrs Yang (Yang Xiaoyun) the 66-year-old woman from Tianjin in China, who has rescued dogs and cats for well-nigh on twenty years, but we doubt anything could have prepared her for what happened when a very small, and financially broke, UK registered charity #1154524 ‘WORLD PROTECTION FOR DOGS AND CATS IN THE MEAT TRADE’ (WPDCMT) AKA ‘No To Dog Meat’ (NTDM) decided, in June 2015, to use her worldwide fame as ‘the face for Yulin dogs’ to raise funds in her name.
As the fundraiser naming her as beneficiary gathered extraordinary momentum her fate was sealed. Since then, she has not only had to contend with the UK charity management playing every dirty trick they could devise to keep the bulk of her fund, but, unbeknown to her, at some point the charity joined forces with Peter J. Li, an associate professor of East Asian politics at the University of Houston-Downtown and China policy adviser with Humane Society International, to create a witch-hunt of her in China and a defamation campaign in the West. Mr Li, Mrs Yang reveals in the recordings below, began his previously more subtle persecution of her before June 2015.
Not only has Mrs Yang received less than 10% of her fund but conditions for Mrs Yang’s sanctuary dogs in Tianjin, China, have continued to dramatically deteriorate as other donations dried up due to the relentless joint campaign, run by Ms Julia de Cadenet (CEO of ‘NTDM) and Mr Li, to close Mrs Yang down. Quite what Mr Li’s plans are for Mrs Yang’s dogs remains a mystery. Are his employers, Humane Society International, planning to fund the relocation and long-term care of the dogs if Mr Li is successful in driving Mrs Yang, in her own words, “to depart this life”?
Mrs Yang has attended the ‘Yulin Summer Solstice Lychee and Dog Meat Festival’ as an animal advocate to negotiate with the local government officials to persuade them to take action to shut down the dog meat eating ‘festival’. Her mission was also to save (what are for the most part stolen pets) those she can from terror and torture before slaughter; buying from the traders inevitably means that most would be sickly and/or injured. Therein lies the controversy that Mrs Yang struggles to defend against. Logistically saving many of her sickly charges from finally succumbing to death is financially overwhelming, treating injury and ailments is a constant challenge on fluctuating income. Often limited funds results in her feeding the animals extremely poor quality food to the detriment of their health; adequate staff ratios is a pipe dream for her. It is important to acknowledge that the cats and dogs rescued by activists intercepting trafficker trucks present the same problems for their rescuers. After the fanfare of activists’ interceptions of the traffickers are publicised rarely does news reach the west as to the final destination, or even the survival rate, of the tragic animals.
I saw a truck with some 1,000 dogs from Sichuan being unloaded to slaughterhouses. Unlike in the past, when you would see big slaughter operations, I saw smaller operations scattered in different parts of the city. I went to two slaughterhouses. What I saw were terrified small dogs, typical of pet dogs in China, and cages of cats, many wearing collars, a sign of stolen household pets. The dogs and cats I saw were sick.The owners of the slaughterhouses admitted that the dogs and cats did not have quarantine inspection certificates as required by the Ministry of Agriculture. They also said the local animal health inspectors never visit to check the health of the animals they slaughter.
We have highlighted the sentence about the dogs being sick because it is relevant to the accusations directed at Mrs Yang by Mr Li, and his associates, about the number of sick dogs in her care.
Please note the sums of money quoted in the translated audio videos convert approximately as RMB1000=£100GBP
Mrs Yang is not the only private dog rescuer who has run into trouble from detractors. Chen Yulian, of whom Mrs Yang speaks fondly in video part 1, had similar problems in 2009. Chen didn’t make her ‘House of Love‘ a legally registered organization because of a local regulation that there could be only one animal shelter in her district. Being illegal, Chen couldn’t keep a public account, so donations went into her personal account.
An extract from The House of Love: An Inside Look at The Struggles of a Private Animal Shelter in China describes how she, like Mrs Yang, was denounced as a cheat.
Chen Yunlian never said no to homeless animals. She believes that every life matters. In the House of Love, handicapped animals were everywhere. Most of them were seriously deformed by human beings. Another great number of handicapped animals were rescued during the earthquake in 2008, for which Chen was severely criticized for rescuing animals “at the critical moment of life and death”. She also lost a great amount of support from overseas. Some western organizations believe euthanasia is the solution for unwanted animals. Chen refused to do it, determined to make her own way of animal rescuing.
In recent years, other troubles followed her as the House of Love drew more public attention. In 2009, some “netizens” dropped in on the House of Love, accusing Chen of stealing public donations. According to their accusation, they were “tipped off” by someone in Chen’s bank, and they found margins between public donations and expenditures. Local media were all over it, and a demand to publish Chen’s personal account was made. When she called me about it, she sounded wronged and indignant, “I have spent my life savings on the animals. Now they accused me of stealing from them!
Fortunately there was a happy ending for Chen Yulian, good PR work and debate in the media resolved the crisis and local government was persuaded to help her.
Who organised the group that invaded and denounced Chen we will never know, but Mrs Yang is adamant that Mr Peter Li is the orchestrator of the vicious campaign of intimidation and denigration of herself in China. With such a powerful tormentor Mrs Yang is faced daily with escalating harassment at home. Meanwhile the UK charity holding the bulk of her £90,000GBP+ fund continues to use Mr Li as reference to ‘validate’ and escalate their own very nasty campaign in the west to defame her as a cheat and animal abuser.
We suggest watching this ‘New York Times’ 2015 video of the controversial ‘Yulin Summer Solstice Lychee and Dog Meat Festival’ to understand why Mrs Yang buys dogs she can ill afford to save them from the terror of brutal slaughter for the revellers to eat.
Mrs Yang delivers shocking news. Mrs Yang claims Mr Peter Li, a China policy specialist for the charity HUMANE SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL (@HSIGlobal ), satellite of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), is recruiting street gangsters for ‘underhanded’ attacks on her and that he, Mr Li, seeks to frighten her with gangster language. Mrs Yang reports that a planned attempt (for the 15th February 2016) to take her dogs was foiled by the police.
The translated audio video from Mrs Yang:
Of course this is a ‘he said/she said’ situation but in defense of Mrs Yang she has only very recently spoken of Peter Li, whereas he has been more than loquacious in speaking out against her during 2015.
Coincidentally this video was posted by friend of Peter Li, Felicia Guo, on February 24 2016. She says on her FB page “People just shot this video of Yang Xiao Yun’s dog reserve. There are a lot skinny and sick poor dogs there!” · February 24.
Hardly surprising that Mrs Yang’s dogs are even more vulnerable to lack of funds since the concentrated campaign led by the UK charity gang with Mr Li to dissuade donors to help her. By the whistling to the dogs it is obvious that this was an undercover op, to what end is debatable. Also it has not gone unnoticed that Ms Felicia Guo works for companies that sell fur garments and that, until the derogatory statements by Mr Li about Mrs Yang, her FB page has not been one of any animal advocacy.
To examine just one of the statements on the home page:
Now let’s look at the photos taken that day:
It is clear that the two young men ‘innocently walking their pet’ at the Yulin dog eating ‘festival’ left on a motor cycle after leaving the dog with Mrs Yang.
The conflicting statements on the site http://www.stopyangxiaoyun.com/ are more than confusing. After taking great pains to represent Mrs Yang’s facilities as “..thus earning the “honor” to be the second most mysterious place on earth next to North Korea.”, and that she allows no visitors, we read that “A more recent visit by an animal welfare expert confirmed that dogs would be better off out on the streets than in Yang’s shelter.”
It is also concerning that so many accusations are not supported by any evidence.
“I was a donor to her. In June 2015, I sent a check of $10,000 to her.” NO EVIDENCE?
“(Yang threatened the New York Times Chinese language website journalist that she would hunt him down and that she would rather poison all her dogs than to surrender her dogs to other shelters).” NO EVIDENCE?
Mrs Yang’s foreign travel? The site reports “In January 2014, Yang travelled overseas to Singapore to attend the Asia for Animals Symposium on her “own” money. She arrived at the event on the last day leaving her dogs locked in the shelter hungry. Travelling to Singapore is not cheap. Who was paying for her trip?” How do the writers know that she was not sponsored? We know for a fact that her recent trip to Malaysia was sponsored.
Again, “..thus earning the “honor” to be the second most mysterious place on earth next to North Korea.” REALLY? All of the media reports on Mrs Yang’s sanctuaries have been more than distressing in exposing the derelict conditions of her premises.
As for erroneous reporting, there are a multitude of news media and social media reports that quote vastly different sums of money spent by Mrs Yang on paying for dogs, and the number of dogs rescued by Mrs Yang. Even one social media reported that Mrs Yang did not rescue the Yulin ‘iconic’ dog when there is clear photographic evidence that she was successful. The UK registered charity #1154524 ‘WORLD PROTECTION FOR DOGS AND CATS IN THE MEAT TRADE’ (WPDCMT) AKA ‘No To Dog Meat’ (NTDM) relies on one UK media report that Mrs Yang spent £45K at Yulin 2015 for 500 dogs then trolls that she sells back to the traders at a profit. How realistic is that argument?
Are Mrs Yang’s dogs well cared for? We are the first to agree that probably not; and definitely she is struggling even more today than before in caring for her rescues thanks to the vindictive campaign to defame her. Is she ‘scamming’ to line her own pocket? That would need to be proven by her enemies, and, so far, they have not offered one iota of proof. Has she husbanded donations wisely? How can we know unless we walk in her moccasins? Is Mr Peter Li a ‘China Dog Rescue Gangster Godfather’ or is he merely operating to attract donations to his paymasters, the HUMANE SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL ? Well that is for the reader to decide.
Mr Peter Li’s support of the UK registered charity #1154524 ‘WORLD PROTECTION FOR DOGS AND CATS IN THE MEAT TRADE’ (WPDCMT) AKA ‘No To Dog Meat’ (NTDM) tactics to tenaciously hold onto the bulk of the restricted income fund naming the Chinese ‘dog and cat protector’ Mrs Yang (Yang Xiaoyun) as beneficiary and the collusion of the fundraising platform http://www.totalgiving.co.uk/appeal/yulin2015 to allow many different titles to the same restricted income fundraiser mission statement is more than alarming. The 2nd petition to address these concerns currently has 6,174 supporters.
We have received a set of audio videos, with subtitles, of Mrs Yang explaining her unpleasant experience with the UK registered charity #1154524 ‘WORLD PROTECTION FOR DOGS AND CATS IN THE MEAT TRADE’ (WPDCMT) AKA ‘No To Dog Meat’ (NTDM) and Mr Peter Li, a China policy specialist for the charity HUMANE SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL.
First recording: Mrs Yang explains how she discovered that the UK charity had raised money in her name. It is believed that the man introduced to Mrs Yang as a Malaysian film maker was the charity trustee Mr Donkers. Why the subterfuge is anybody’s guess. NB the ‘10%’ Mrs Yang declares is all she has received, RMB 84,000, is approximately £8,400GBP. Mrs Yang has obviously not been informed that the restricted fundraiser mission statement was for purchasing Yulin dogs AND for the upkeep of all her dogs and improvements of premises.
Second recording: Mrs Yang strongly refutes that the UK charity subsequently offered her food vouchers (or other assistance) to feed her animals.
Third recording: Mrs Yang also refutes that the UK charity offered to pay for veterinary care or to pay for neutering. However, she reports that Mr Peter Li of HUMANE SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL offered her money (approx.£16K GBP) if she would agree to a video being shot. Mrs Yang explains why she refused his offer, and refused the visit from an overseas vet, arranged by Mr Li.
Quite where, or even why, Mr Li fits into the UK charity fundraiser scandal remains unclear. What is clear, however, is that Mrs Yang asserts that she was bullied by representatives of two charities; Ms Julia de Cadenet, the CEO of ‘WORLD PROTECTION FOR DOGS AND CATS IN THE MEAT TRADE’ (WPDCMT) AKA ‘No To Dog Meat’ (NTDM) and Mr Peter Li, China policy specialist for the charity HUMANE SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL.
Fourth recording: Mrs Yang explains the confrontation with the woman ‘Duan of Kunming’ & the gang that arrived at her premises to forcibly take her dogs away. Out of 100,000 RMB (approx. £10K GBP), donated to her by fellow Chinese citizens, Mrs Yang reports that Duan has only given her 19,000 RMB (approx. £1,900 GBP)
Fifth recording: Mrs Yang briefly states that she doesn’t know Mr Jon Williamson (AKA Dr Jose Depre of IARF) who proliferates FB with a multitude of Facebook pages, nor does she authorise him to use her name to raise money.
CRUEL DISINFORMATION: One deliberate lie discredits all other source material.
The disinformation circulated about Mrs Yang, in order to discredit her, took a ghoulish twist when an observer noted that the UK charity’s voluble spokeswoman, Alice Susan Harding, has lifted a picture of puppy fetus and dog entrails from a completely unrelated Chinese 2012 blog to use in a collage of supposed photos of Mrs Yang’s shelter. Ms Harding posted the collage on her website article denouncing the conditions of Mrs Yang’s shelters. The article is called:AN INVESTIGATIVE REPORT ON THE CONDITIONS AT YANG XIAOYUN’S SHELTER. It is worth mentioning that Alice Susan Harding has never visited China.
Quote from Alice Susan Harding on Twitter “if they had truth on their side they would not need to lie”
Shameful distortion of ‘truth’ by Alice Susan Harding who lifts images from unrelated sites to vent her disinformation.
Ironical to note that Alice Susan Harding consistently protests that only she has the full facts regarding Mrs Yang’s dogs, so why the need to deliberately distort the ‘facts’?
We post at the bottom of the page screen shots of visual proof that the picture was lifted by Alice Susan Harding from a Chinese 2012 report of a visit to a dog meat trade enterprise; and, also, to emphasise that this abominable cruelty is exactly what Mrs Yang has spent so many years working to end. Mrs Yang is an outspoken campaigning advocate not only to end the brutality but to bring about a law making the consumption of dogs and cats illegal. Mrs Yang is also a staunch advocate of neutering strays, and has recently visited Malaysia, as an invited and sponsored guest, where she supported the campaign there for neutering strays.
The fundraising scandal reaches the Chinese tabloids:
“….China Press reports on Mrs Yang claim of being cheated by the UK animal charity and her announcement of the appointment of MK Pak (Mankind FILMS) and a UK associate to assist her in legally pursuing the charity for release of the money raised for her.
(https://t.co/0Y3YscFWr0)” credit: https://www.facebook.com/YesAndNowGroup/
As 2015 draws to a close The UK registered charity #1154524 ‘WORLD PROTECTION FOR DOGS AND CATS IN THE MEAT TRADE’ (WPDCMT) AKA ‘No To Dog Meat’ (NTDM) are still tenaciously holding on to the restricted income fund naming the Chinese ‘dog and cat protector’ Mrs Yang (Yang Xiaoyun) as beneficiary.
The charity management are publicising a recent SCTV.com video report calling it a “Shocking new report providing irrefutable evidence that what NoToDogMeat have said about Mrs Yang all along is true!” It seems they are counting on few westerners being able to understand a word of the report and are putting their own spin on it. The video report is fair and unbiased and reveals little new information other than a dispute between Mrs Yang and an uninvited visitor. We believe that the following translations will offer a clearer picture of why Mrs Yang is caught on camera attacking a fellow countrywoman named Duan. You will read that the woman named Duan was threatening to turn Mrs Yang’s dogs out onto the streets, and, that this same woman gave Mrs Yang only 19000 yuan out of the 100,000 yuan donated for Mrs Yang by people from Yunnan prior to this years Yulin dog meat festival.
Full translation of Mrs Yang’s weibo post dated Dec 2. ~~ When I, Yang XiaoYun was buying dogs at the Yulin festival in 2015, a person named Duan who runs the Kunming Animal Protection Farm contacted me. She said people from Yunnan had raised donations amounting to CNY 100,000 (editor’s note: approx.£10,000) for me as funds to buy dogs. She then joined me and entered into the market, and I started talking to the dog dealers. While I was busy, Duan left me without giving me any money. Later on, as I ran out of all money and didn’t even have any money for transportation, I called Duan but no one answered the phone, I therefore gave up calling. Later in the night, Duan called me and asked if I had money, I told her the truth that I didn’t even have money for transportation. She told me to wait and said she would send money over. That night, she withdrew 19000 (editor’s note: approx. £1,900) from the cash machine and gave it to me, I wrote her a receipt right after taking her money. The fee to transport a truck of dogs to Tianjin that evening was 15000, the remaining was huge help to me including my own transportation. Since then, there has been no contact with her, and no further news about the remaining 81000 (editor’s note: approx. £8100) of the donation.
Yesterday, Duan stated online that she was going to break into my base and release all my dogs. She came today, and I reported to police for my safety.
I would like to take this opportunity to reach the kind hearted people who donated for me during the Yulin festival this year. In order to recap the total donation, those who donated please email me your name, telephone number, donation amount, and any information about the people who took your donation at my email address fengkuan1221@163.com.
Thank you so much to those kind hearted people who donated CNY100,000 for me, but I have only received CNY19000! I hope to receive emails from those who donated, to check the whereabouts of the donations! (original on this link)
The screen shot above is a Wechat message from Duan. She runs a dog shelter in Kunming. She aggressively expresses her intention to break into Mrs Yang’s sanctuary and send the dogs onto the streets :
“Great I will lead to go to Yang’s base, break the door and release the dogs, when dogs are gone, I will leave.”
The video report The Dog Woman by SCTV.com has been altered by the charity to include a title ‘Mrs Yang Xiaoyun Exposed’ that does not appear on the original and is posted with that alteration by the charity on YouTube
We provide here a translation in detail of the video news report: The Dog Woman
Good evening, thank you for watching Golden 30 Minutes. In Tianjin, an elderly woman has become famous across the country because of her love for dogs. In the Yulin dog meat festival in the recent two years, she spent huge amount of money purchasing a large number of dogs that were waiting to be butchered. And she transported them all the way to Tianjin. Yet a woman with such huge love for the dogs is now being accused of animal abuse. What really happened?
An elderly woman at her 60s has spent all her money and possessions to rescue stray dogs.
Yang: Come on… stand up. Let mama take a look…… baby…
A picture of her down on her kneels at the Yulin dog meat festival has made her famous. But what follows is accusation and controversy.
Woman in black jacket: She doesn’t take good care of the dogs. She cheats money.
Does she really love dogs or use dogs to cheat money? What is the underlying truth?
Yang: I snap your face…..
We now deliver you… The DOG WOMAN
Beichen, Tianjin
Yang (reading a poem): Your short lives, suffering. Humans are cruel, difficult for you to live. Facing god, my heart is boiled. All you want is to survive, a mouthful of rice, loyal and to be trusted. Scene of your horrible death, the great god saw. XiaoYun incapable, the Buddha decides. Sacrifice my life, spare their suffering. Leave the suffering, back to human life.
The 66-yr-old retired worker Yang XiaoYun is considered as the most well-known animal activist in China. She began rescuing stray cats and dogs in 1995 and founded the Tianjin Common Home Animal Protection Shelter. As of now, her life of rescuing animals has entered into the 20th year. But this year has not been a good year for her. While always treating dogs as family, Yang is now being criticized and accused of abusing dogs.
Dec 1, 2015 morning – Yang’s shelter in Beichen, Tianjin
Early in the morning, two women showed up at the door of Yang XiaoYun’s shelter uninvited.
Duan: I came to see the 3000 dogs, you have 4 shelters, I came to see your 4 shelters.
Yang: I don’t allow you to see, who sent you?
Duan: I sent me.
Yang: I don’t need to show you. Go go go…. I have 300 dogs, I don’t have 3000 dogs.
Duan: You told me you had 3000 dogs…
Yang: Bullshit, I’ll beat you out….do you believe…
The two women are dog lovers from Yunnan and Beijing. Duan, the leading person of the two who used to have a close relationship with Yang XiaoYun also runs a dog shelter in Kunming. Today she came to Yang’s shelter from Kunming, but Yang did not allow this old friend to enter into her shelter.
Yang (holding stick): Leave!
Dog lover(s): Let’s talk… let’s talk..let’s talk…
Duan: I’m not going…I’m not going…..
Others: Auntie Yang… Auntie Yang…. It’s ok it’s ok… fine…fine…fine…
Why did Yang become so mad with the appearance of Duan? Duan said she came with a pure purpose, that is to see Yang’s dogs, but was shocked.
Duan: Her dogs are so poor…really poor. They’re better starved to death or freeze to death on the street than in here. This place can be said as dogs’ hell.
Through the crack of the doors, Duan saw many dogs with skin problems in the shelter, some losing big amount of hair.
Yang: You bastard… what did I do wrong? You can’t get away with this… you bastard…..
At the door of the shelter, Yang kept yelling at Duan and her companions until they left. Yang and Duan used to be friends and they both are well-known in the animal protection circle, what makes them such enemies today? They said it is because of the rumors after the Yulin dog meat festival.
June 19, 2014 – street in Yulin, Guangxi
Yang: I tell you now…the purpose of our promotion is not for you to mock at us, to laugh at us. We are all Chinese….
Yulin citizen (shouts): Chinese people eat dog meat…
Yang: The world now promotes no dog meat eating…..
Yulin citizen: You love lives, you love dogs? There are mountain kids without education, why don’t you go to them…. and you talk about people eating dogs!!
On June 21 every year, there is a festival especially organized by people in Yulin, Guangxi – the Yulin Summer Laichee Dog Meat Festival. On that day, thirty thousand dogs are killed for cooking. To dog lovers like Yang XiaoYun, that is absolutely cruel slaughtering. Prior to the dog meat festival in 2014, Yang went to Yulin for the first time hoping to persuade people in Yulin not to eat dog meat. She spent money to buy dogs waiting to be killed.
Yang: I save as many dogs as I can. I am a volunteer and I have been doing animal rescue for 20 years. I am now in Tianjin and have adopted 3200 dogs and 200 cats.
Reporter: How much money are you going to spend on buying dogs this time?
Yang: Less than CNY100,000
Reporter: What is the source of your funds?
Yang: Kind hearts of the society, and international donation. The money I have now is by selling my flats in Tianjin. I have two flats in Tianjin, in Nankai district and in Heping district… the best flats in Tianjin… I sold them for 4 million.
Yang and a few dog lovers together purchased a large number of dogs in the dog trade market. The dog dealers heard about them and rushed over. In order to mark up the prices, the dog dealers even torture the dogs to attract the dog lovers to buy the dogs.
Dog dealer (holding the dog up): Pay or not pay?
Citizen: Another (dog lover) coming…..
Dog dealer: I don’t care… I want money….
Dog lover: How much do you want?
Dog dealer: 500
Dog lover: Please don’t be like this…..
Dog dealer: 400…400…….400…pay now
Finally, this dog lover bought the dog for CNY 350
Yang: For a few times I almost fainted. I spend money to buy so many dogs, but not only do these people don’t understand, they even rally and make fun of the dogs to poke us, to rip us off.
In the 2014 Yulin festival, Yang spent over a hundred thousand to buy over 300 dogs and transported them all the way to her Tianjin shelter. She even got down on her kneels to beg a dog dealer for a golden retriever. This scene was captured and went viral on the internet. And Yang XiaoYun has become famous by it.
Duan: I heard from her she saves dogs from Yulin…save dog etc…etc…so I especially admire her.
At the Dog Meat Festival a year later, the two of them met in Yulin. Yang spent a lot of money again to purchase hundreds of dogs to transport to Tianjin. Duan called for other dog lovers in Kunming and provided CNY 19000 for Yang’s transportation. The two of them are both dog lovers, what has made them become so hostile against each other now? Duan said it is because what Yang did that destroy her belief in Yang’s legend.
Duan: After giving her the money, she did not leave. And she did not leave the next day. And then there were lots of reporters… interviewing her all day. By the first look of it, we know she was actually putting on a show. And we feel we have been duped.
At Yang XiaoYun’s shelter in Beichen, Tianjin
Yang: Grateful… good doggie…he knows I rescued him from far away…specially good
Reporter: This dog is from Yulin?
Yang: Correct.
These are the two yards in Tianjin Yang has rented after she came back from Yulin. She adopted a total of 400 dogs big and small in these two yards, the expenses everyday are consistently high for this one shelter only.
Yang: Feeding them in order…this food will be finished in one day… it costs 1000 a day…and these are just some dogs, not all the dogs.
Reporter: How much is this truck of food?
Yang: This one is cheap.. this is 70 cents per catty. We usually buy the better one which is 1 yuan per catty.
Yang(shouting out): Is there anymore? No more? Mark it down…and calculate later. Wait till I have some help and we’ll calculate together.
In order to rescue stray dogs, Yang spent all her money and she even sold her two flats in Tianjin. Now she lives on debts and public donations and is barely coping. Since there are too many dogs and not enough space, the dogs even live in Yang’s bedroom in the shelter. There are feces and urine everywhere with unbearable stink that no normal people can endure. Yet, Yang is used to such environment and feels that she is living with her own children.
Yang: I call them my daughters and my sons. They are my emotional support. I don’t care what people say, they are my emotional support.
Yang said she has hired one or two workers at her other shelters. Although the shelters are always lacking of money, food and labor, she has never thought of giving up on rescuing stray dogs.
Yang: I was crushed with the death of my love in 1995, I then began picking up strays. Humans are emotional being. You live with them everyday. When you’re happy, they’re happy. When you sit there depressed, they will just look at you. They know you, they understand you. So to we people who have dogs, with dogs it is better than with people.
Although Yang said she loves dogs more than life; there are people like Duan, who have been to her shelters said Yang does not love dogs, but abuse dogs instead.
Yue Yue (animal protection volunteer from Beijing): The four of us went there, what I saw is that male dogs, female dogs, sick dogs, and healthy dogs were not separated. All dogs are together, feces everywhere. That is what I saw.
Yang: That’s right, of course there are feces when I don’t clean well. But you look, there are feces even after I clean it right? After I clean this yard, I have to feed them, and I go to the other yard to clean. You can see the other yard just now. There are so many dogs, they eat and they drink.
Yang XiaoYun explained that in the shelter, all sick dogs are isolated and grouped together in the small yard awaiting treatments. That is why people subjectively think all of them are in bad conditions. But in a different yard of the shelter are all healthy dogs. Some dog lovers say Yang exaggerated her work and that she has different agenda.
Yue Yue: She doesn’t take good care of the dogs. She just cheats money. She gets pity from kindhearted people using the dogs’ miserable conditions.
Yang: You see what I’m facing is already difficult enough. I’m 66 years old, alone. I’m so old, with so many dogs, you take a look at the dump I sleep in, you take a look at what kind of a life I live! Right? People need to have conscience. Whose money did I cheat exactly? Whose money did I cheat? You can show proof? You can sue me. I’m old…I will not. My dogs…I tell everyone that I won’t share not even one dog hair with them. I won’t give the dogs to them. They don’t love the dogs.
An elderly woman who begged a dog dealer in order save a life, is now dragged into the controversy of dog abuse and cheating. Such controversy has even drawn the involvement of various local and foreign media. Being at the center of the controversy, Yang XiaoYun is very upset about the people and disturbance against her. As Duan appeared at Yang’s door wanting to investigate Yang’s identity, Yang believed Duan was in fact there to take away her “kids” from her. And this explains the fight scene between the two at the beginning of this program.
Dec 1, 2015 Home of Yang XiaoYun’s son
Yang has not been to her son’s place for over a month. If not for what happened this morning, Yang would not have come to her son’s home today. She is in desperate need of some comfort from her family.
Yang: Which law did I break? I have adopted many strays for 20 years, what law did I break? Why should I let them see? What kind of qualifications do they have?
Yang’s daughter-in-law: She did this one thing in her life, how to say….. as we cannot object to her, so we just support her.
Because of the dogs, Yang fought with her son and her son left home for three years. Yang even made it clear that she cares dogs more than her family. As her son and daughter-in-law cannot change the stubborn Yang, they have now become Yang’s shelter volunteers.
Daughter-in-law: we really treat the dogs well. The meals I cook for her, she doesn’t eat them herself but feed them all to the dogs. And she spends hundreds and hundreds of money to buy food for dogs. She’s happy to spend more money on dogs than on people.
Yang: I treat the dogs better than my grandchild, and my daughter-in-law is not happy about it…
Daughter-in-law: My boy…we can’t even see her a few times a year.
Yang: There’s nothing I can do. I see dogs better than life. I even abandon my son, my daughter-in-law, and grandchild. I can’t do anything about it.
Yang: You have time tomorrow. You come help me give injections to the dogs.
Daughter-in-law: Ok… do I need to bring water?
Yang: No, there is water. My daughter-in-law knows how to give injections.
Daughter-in-law(jokes): I’m a vet.
The next day at Yang XiaoYun’s shelter
Yang: Hua Hua…..
Such a big shelter is managed by Yang XiaoYun alone. A dog wandered out of the shelter when Yang was not aware. Yang went looking for the dog by herself, just like looking for her own daughter. Yang believes it is best for the strays to be with her.
Half hour later
Yang: You finished playing? Have enough fun? Let’s go back and eat. Come on Hua Hua. You’ve made me so tired…Hua Hua…I couldn’t find you…I couldn’t eat.
Yang XiaoYun is a kindhearted elderly woman. But her kind heart is helpless and fragile, and she fights alone hoping to save all the strays by herself. Her shelters are disorganized, she cannot hire permanent workers due to insufficient funds, and the facilities are shabby. All these problems lead to the criticism against her. However, as the goal of all is to respect lives and to protect them; everybody should just sit down, and discuss ways of working together, and this would be the scene that the public truly want to see. END OF TRANSLATION
Below is a particularly distasteful meme produced for social media by a Ms Alice Harding who announces herself as a dear friend of the charity’s CEO and a ‘full time volunteer’ for the charity since May 2015.
Interestingly there is a Chinese social media report, posted in 2012, that a woman dog rescuer, named Duan of Kunming, is a known trade dealer in dogs. http://bbs.tianya.cn/post-290-47691-1.shtml and brief translation of that report is as follows:
” The Kunming Animal Protection Farm run by Duan is a fake. Duan is in fact an infamous dog trader in Xishan Bijiguan of Kunming, everybody from Bijiguan knows. Dogs in Duan’s private farm are for breeding purpose. They breed dogs for money. Duan has always been living on dogs, please do not trust Duan, she even let her worker beat the 4 stray dogs to death nearby her place earlier, and the rescue station there was founded by another aunt, not Duan. That rescue station run by another aunt always met with Duan’s hostility. Duan always stop the water supply for the dogs, force them to move (that aunt has 150 dogs under her care, tel no: 13888991467). This woman Duan has loads of fake tears, she uses stray dogs to cheat kind people’s money.”
News received today is that Mankind Films are on their way back to visit Mrs Yang.
We reproduce the Q & A with Mr Chong below. In the interview Mr Chong pointed to this video, saying: “This is a recent film made by a Malaysian film producer who is also an animal lover. He was so taken by Mdm. Yang’s heart that he made a trip to visit her in Tianjin. Judge for yourself what is the edge of the coin.”
Published on 14 Oct 2015
A tribute to Mdm. Yang Xiao Yun (杨晓芸) Tianjin Stray Animal Rescue Centre aka Common Home For All.
17 Nov 2015 — We recently spoke with Mr Kenneth Chong, Co-Founder & CEO of the Peace Prize Foundation. Ken kindly agreed to share his personal thoughts on the situation Mrs Yang finds herself in today; striving every day through poor health to save as many dogs as she can while being persecuted and defamed by a very uncharitable charity.
“Mrs. Yang is real. Spoken to her many a time. Yes, she has her challenges but she is a devout Buddhist and a kind soul to animals great and small’.
We would welcome hearing more on your thoughts.
❮Ken❯: This is a personal view. Firstly, no charity should behave in such a manner. All charities are bound to be transparent and deal with donors with the utmost integrity and respect. Alleged abusive behaviour suggests hidden issues. It is now a criminal offence to abuse third parties in England and Wales. Under new laws now in place in the UK, there is a two year jail sentence for online abuse not to mention civil proceedings.〖http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-29678989 〗
Charities need to produce annual accounts and made available for inspection by the public. If there are serious, extenuating circumstances concerning the beneficiary, the charity should in the first instance provide a clear public statement and offer to return all monies to donors.
Avoidance and blaming Third Parties could raise more questions. Now, Mrs Yang is made out by some to be “suspect”. Let’s look at facts. She has been doing this for more than twenty years. Like Peter [Egan], your goodself and thousands who stood up for animals, it started a long time ago out of compassion and love for animals.
She sold her properties and earthly belongings to care for thousands of dogs and cats. It is not a quick get rich scheme. When you donate, it is important to know not just the intended beneficiary but also ask how long has the charity been around? What is the history of its leaders? What are the successful projects? Awards and Citations. Are the Trustees upstanding people of society? What other positions / public office do (or did) they hold?
It is certainly convenient to put the blame onto Mrs. Yang whose health has been deteriorating and has limited attention and has little right of reply (1) she does not speak or write English (2) she isn’t a paperwork person (3) and all she cares about is trying to do her best to help the dogs and cats despite (4) harassment from local authorities trying to extract money from her as well.
When we make a donation, we believe the beneficiary will do his / her best to utilise the funds for the cause. The charity’s role is to ensure there is orderly disbursement of funds, receipts given and provide any assistance to the beneficiary. If there are “fees”, the charity should make it upfront so that donors are aware.
China is still a communist country run by thugs in many areas. There are three sides to a coin. It would be useful to understand the edge of reasoning. Trust and faith, like respect is earned. If any Charity is unable to keep my faith and trust, I am gone. But please return my money so that I may donate to a proper cause.
❮Q❯: You say you speak with Mrs Yang. Have you spoken to her recently?
❮Ken❯: The last time was in May this year. She said “she is warmed to so many supporters from around the world and this gives her strength to carry on.” I think she is oblivious to the looming problems when asked if she had received funds from the UK, Spain and Italy (Twitter followers asked). She said “there is a UK charity that handles fund raising but she receives small amounts.” Still, she is grateful for the overwhelming support.
❮Q❯: Can you tell us a bit more about how Mrs Yang is coping with such a heavy burden of taking care of so many dogs, and the challenges she faces.
❮Ken❯: She has limited help and even access to the animals – many are impounded by the local authorities. To her “A life is still a life.” So, she plods on doing whatever she can along with two or three young people who is caring for this old woman.
Mdm Yang is not asking for pity or sympathy but her health is really bad despite all the snappy photos taken by Third Parties. The compounds are neglected and the more dogs in there exacerbate the problem as they also breed and create waste and other local health issues. Mrs. Yang’s solution perhaps are volunteers to help. Money coming in helps but she is hardly an organisation with all the backend.
❮Q❯: We hear that Mrs Yang is reluctant to accept help from outside bodies. Would that sound true to you, and why?
❮Ken❯: In a manner of speaking yes because of many who have ulterior motives. She has had local charities wanting to help but end up deducting huge amounts of fees for “services” but say she got 100%. Broken promises has left her with a poor impression that people want to use her to make money, not to help the animals.
Her present situation remains much the same as described. It’s a huge challenge in the long run. I am not sure if her way of doing things is the best way but, under the circumstances, she is doing on best effort basis to mitigate.
She needs to set up proper accounting but on the other hand, she gets lump sums and does not have a clue who are the individual donors. It would be good to get someone in the UK who speaks Mandarin to liaise with her assistants.
❮Q❯: We believe Mrs Yang has become a very vulnerable beneficiary of the restricted fund raised for her yet withheld from her. We wondered whether we could help her in some way.
❮Ken❯: Perhaps set up a liaison officer to work with her and understand her needs. Years of exposure to animals is giving her respiratory problems but her resolution is strong. Her trust is weak to people wanting to help and her volunteers get little funding to do more. At times, less that 20% get to her. She is dismayed and unhappy that much needed money is really going to help her dogs and cats.
Food is in short supply, medicines for sick animals insufficient (she makes her own) and there is so much physical work to clean the place, even provide heating for the shelters. Twice as bad when Winter comes.
Perhaps, the solutions you seek [for Mrs Yang] may come from within the wider group of animal activists who may help. Work with the local China activists – though not all will support her methods – but my earnest wish is that she will get the right support.
This is a recent film made by a Malaysian film producer who is also an animal lover. He was so taken by Mdm. Yang’s heart that he made a trip to visit her in Tianjin.
************************Please visit************************
To find out about Ken’s humanitarian work, please visit http://peaceprize.com/ “The Peace Prize Foundation and Humanitarian Awards – Empowering a New Generation of Peace Makers and Social Leaders”.
On 3rd Nov 2015, Ms Julia de Cadenet tweets denying that she tweets about Mrs Yang, and admits that Mrs Yang is powerless to refute allegations made by Ms de Cadenet on Twitter.
However, on 15th Nov 2015, the CEO, Ms Julia de Cadenet, of the UK registered charity #1154524 ‘WORLD PROTECTION FOR DOGS AND CATS IN THE MEAT TRADE’ (WPDCMT) AKA ‘No To Dog Meat’ (NTDM) still holding the money intended for Mrs Yang, continues to spit her venom on Twitter at Mrs Yang.
Ms Julia de Cadenet and one of her fellow trustees, Mr Robert Donkers, paid a flying visit to Mrs Yang in China at the end of August 2015. They appeared to have spent more time, during those few days, on photo calls with an organisation called TACN. The founder of TACN has also been subject to defamation attacks on Weibo, the social media platform in China. The last news we have is that TACN are attempting to sue the prolific writer of the accusations directed against their founder of scamming. As posted by The Yes And Now Group on Friday, October 23, 2015: “The plot against Mrs Yang is a convoluted mess of contradiction and strange ‘alliances.’ One ‘alliance’ uncovered is…”
“TACN in China is run by Liu Yanli ((aka. Xiaoli). There is a long Weibo denouncement of Liu Yanli, ‘years of deception’ on the link:http://card.weibo.com/article/h5/s… The accusations made by the writer are quite staggering. TACN are currently attempting to sue through the Beijing courts the writer of that Weibo denouncement and at this time we have no further information on the civil action. The denouncement however is still posted to Weibo.
Untruthful denouncement is a nasty business. TACN are fortunate to be sufficiently financially funded to be able to clear the name of their charity and co -founder Liu Yanli through the courts. Mrs Yang, however, considers sick & hungry animals to be more important than spending precious donations suing her denouncers through the courts and can not afford the luxury of clearing her name.”
We refer you again to an answer from Mr Chong “❮Ken❯: She has limited help and even access to the animals – many are impounded by the local authorities. To her “A life is still a life.” So, she plods on doing whatever she can along with two or three young people who is caring for this old woman.”
The charity CEO seems ignorant of the ‘fact’ that Mrs Yang considers ‘her animals’ to include dogs ‘impounded by the local authorities’.
Worryingly, are the many hundreds of dogs rescued by the Chinese ‘activist interceptors’ from the Chinese DMT traders transport vehicles, that TACN and others on social media report but never give a follow up on, destined for local authority dog pounds? And, is Mrs Yang being cynically blamed for the dire conditions in these dog pounds by the UK charity desperate to hang onto money gifted to her by donors worldwide?
Time now for the Trustees of UK registered charity #1154524 ‘WORLD PROTECTION FOR DOGS AND CATS IN THE MEAT TRADE’ (WPDCMT) AKA ‘No To Dog Meat’ (NTDM) to stop their nonsense and refund to donors the money gifted for Mrs Yang.
The issue is crystal clear: ⦁ The Fundraiser running from early June 2015 until September 1st 2015 on Total Giving, naming Mrs Yang as the beneficiary, is a restricted fund under UK law.
⦁ As a restricted fund under UK law there are only two options; the UK charity must return the donations to all of the donors and refund to HMRC any Gift Aid received or release the full total of the money gifted to Mrs Yang.
Mrs Yang is a private individual. She is not an organisation, neither is she a business. Mrs Yang is not a convicted criminal. There was no stipulation in the fundraiser mission statement to specify how many animals she needed to prove were under her protection; there was nothing in the fundraising mission statement to indicate that the payment of the money gifted for her was subject to the condition of her animals or the accommodation that housed them. There was certainly nothing in the fundraiser mission statement that releasing money gifted to Mrs Yang was conditional on the trustees liking or not liking Mrs Yang; that she would be penalised if found to be cantankerous, stubborn, self willed and resentful of patronising busybodies, and wary of large animal charities that swallow up donations in huge overheads before putting food in bowls of one dog or cat. People donated knowing that Mrs Yang was working in desperate conditions, the fundraiser mission statement even said so.
HOWEVER, the administrators on one of the Charity’s many Facebook pages are in denial that the UK law on restricted fundraising applies to their charity.
The fundraiser for Mrs Yang could have been ended at any point if the charity management wished to raise money instead for other projects/beneficiaries. There is no optionunder UK law for a registered UK charity, creating a restricted fundraiser for a named beneficiary or project, to decide to keep any part of the fund to pay the charity’s bills, to spend it on promotional material or on PR, or to spend it on other projects. They are not allowed to give any part of the fund to ‘others’.
The UK Charity Commission understand the law on fundraising better than the general public, so their employees refusal to address complaints of corruption of a restricted fundraiser is truly shocking. The general public, when donating for a specific cause, do so believing that the law will offer them protection/redress when being cheated by a fundraiser, even more so when the fundraiser is registered with the Charity Commission.
We could list reams of ‘rumours’, evidence and first hand accounts about the CEO of this charity and her unsavory management cohorts behavior, but it would change nothing. If the Charity Commission, in spite of complaints presented to them with tangible evidence about Ms de Cadenet, choose to allow this charity to remain on its register there is little to be done. Confidence in the Charity Commission is at an all time low so no doubt they care less about another rotten apple in their barrel; a barrel, by the way, funded at huge cost to the British taxpayer.
Only the charity knows how much they harvested from the fundraiser using the worldwide popularity of Mrs Yang (after her picture begging for a dog’s life went viral in 2014), the sum certainly must be, at the most conservative estimate, in excess of £87k including UK Gift Aid and after paypal fees paid. The charity head, Ms de Cadenet, shows no indication of willingness to release any more money to Mrs Yang than the £12K she declares has been sent. It must be said that Mrs Yang is reported to dispute the amount received from the charity.
Whether or not Mrs Yang, by ‘social media trial’, is judged to be ‘deserving’ of the money gifted for her is quite irrelevant. The law is as it stands and the obstinate stance of the charity’s trustees, that they believe themselves to be immune to that law and can fritter away Mrs Yang’s fund in any way they choose, must be loudly protested. The very public antics of this small charity has been a master class to other unscrupulous people on how, by registering with the Charity Commission, they can enjoy with impunity open season on robbing compassionate donors blind.
Mrs Yang stands accused of ‘aggressively’ fundraising. It is being heralded in a highly detrimental fashion that Mrs Yang has, over the years, received many thousands of dollars in donations. Contrived indignation is being expressed on various social media platforms that the money must have been squandered or stolen by Mrs Yang. The perpetrators of these indignant accusations have carefully avoided acknowledging the basic cost per annum of food alone for dogs. To feed just 500 dogs, at the very lowest estimate (low quality food) of £0.15GBP per dog per day, costs £27,000.00GBP ($41,000.00USD per annum). Have Mrs Yang’s critics even bothered to calculate how much she would need to raise each year for food, medication and vet bills, before even considering providing fancy shelter accommodation and staff to clean.
As reported in our previous post, Mrs Yang has shrugged off adversity, gritted her remaining teeth, and steadfastly set about raising and borrowing money herself to complete the expanded shelter she is currently relocating dogs to (pictures below). The photos have been released by Mrs Yang and you will see in some that she has made no ‘cosmetic’ concession to please her public by hiding the fact that her many charges constantly and indiscriminately poop and pee.
Donations can be sent directly to Mrs Yang to keep her dogs fed while the UK charity denies her access to her funds. These bank coordinates have been checked and double checked with people who have recently successfully transferred money to Mrs Yang.
Bank Name: INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA
Tianjin Chentangzhuang Branch
Account No: 0302845001009282956
Account Name: Ai Yun, YANG
Xiaoyun Yang’s Cell Phone: 13164073263
N.B Trf via Western Union example of fees 50$ 5$ fee ~~ £50 £2.90 fee
STOP PRESS: On the evening of 25th October 2015, Ms Julia de Cadenet, CEO and trustee of the UK registered charity #1154524 ‘WORLD PROTECTION FOR DOGS AND CATS IN THE MEAT TRADE’ (WPDCMT) AKA ‘No To Dog Meat’ (NTDM) chooses Twitter to make the ‘statement’ “#YANGISASCAM” re: the restricted fund naming the Chinese ‘dog and cat protector’ Mrs Yang (Yang Xiaoyun) as beneficiary
UK CHARITY HEAD CONTINUES TO IGNORE PUBLIC OPINION: In spite of constant calls from the public for information, four months after Mrs Yang traveled to Yulin to save dogs from torture and slaughter at the infamous dog meat eating ‘festival’, the allocation of money gifted to her by donors worldwide remains a mystery.
Charities can’t just expect the public’s trust;
they must earn it.
(Ruth Sutherland CEO of Relate)
Controversy continues to rage over the, yet to be explained, allocation of a restricted fund created by the UK registered charity #1154524 ‘WORLD PROTECTION FOR DOGS AND CATS IN THE MEAT TRADE’ (WPDCMT) AKA ‘No To Dog Meat’ (NTDM). The fund named the Chinese ‘dog and cat protector’ Mrs Yang (Yang Xiaoyun) as beneficiary. The trustees of the charity promised after their visit to Mrs Yang, in late August, to issue a statement (and report) by the end of September, and the CEO announced (with considerable vigour) on Twitter that a press conference was to be held at the time of issuing the statement. We are now at the 26th October and no statement nor report has been forthcoming from the trustees.
The charity trustees had apparently chosen to deliver the long awaited news of Mrs Yang’s fund, to worldwide donors and the public, (in the middle of a working week) at this less than practical venue. It is important to note that in this announcement they assure that more details ‘…will be confirmed closer to the time‘. No further details were announced. The trustees were expected to be personally demonstrating at the London Chinese Embassy between 1- 5 PM; hastily changed in the afternoon to Downing Street, then again later supporters were redirected on FB to a mysterious ‘Sowing Street’.
As one person commented, ‘you would have needed roller skates to keep up with the trustees that day’.
Later that night this tweet was discovered on Twitter from the charity CEO.
And this one from one of Ms de Cadenet’s fellow trustees, Mr Robert Donkers.
This was viewed to be a highly unfair stance of self-righteous indignation adopted by the trustees. The opportunity to meet/speak with the trustees was ambiguously worded and poorly advertised. It was pretty much impossible for working folk from around the globe, people unable to afford to travel to London, or those without Skype savvy to ‘attend’, even if they knew the appointed time; AND STILL NO STATEMENT HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE CHARITY!
The debate around transparency is not going to die down any time soon. A loss of public trust has been identified as one of the largest risks for the sector, and whilst there is no ‘crisis of trust’ occurring for the sector at the moment, recent surveys have underlined that the sector is not exempt from changes in opinion. Charities need to understand why these changes occur in order to maintain public trust.
While the charity trustees have been toying with donors and the general public, and campaigning to cruelly defame her, Mrs Yang has steadfastly soldiered on. To complete the (pictured) expanded shelter, she set about raising and borrowing money herself. The following pictures have been released by Mrs Yang with her latest updates circulating in social media in China:
Translation of the posted Chinese message:
“Expansion work of Yang XiaoYun’s Tianjin shelter is now finished, and will soon be in full operation. Facing the defamation and hostile rumour attacks by those “conspirators”, and the non-stop insults by those who know nothing about the situation, Yang XiaoYun not only did not give up, but becomes even stronger. She raises & borrows money on her own from different directions in order to build this rescue centre. Now that Yang XiaoYun’s shelter is built, what exactly did those who suspect Yang XiaoYun do to help?“
In spite of the reported denouncements from ‘far flung’ (Where are Mrs Yang’s detractors from?) Chinese Agencies, Mrs Yang has not been abandoned by local people, many of whom have rallied as best they can in support of her work. But, food shortage is a constant challenge.
THE DIRTY TACTICS:
As public opinion in the west, for the most part, rejects the defamation of Mrs Yang, and the NTDM attack gang dwindles in numbers; the campaign has expanded on Twitter with more fake ‘egg’ accounts being created to accuse Mrs Yang of breeding puppies for meat. One account however, is a real individual come lately to support her personal friend; Ms Julia de Cadenet.
On the 22nd October, @WendyJHelm declared herself to be representing the charity: “I AM NOW THE CYBER BULLY REP FOR NO TO DOG MEAT”
A litany of tweets followed before this rather strange individual then stepped up the rhetoric to accuse Mrs Yang of personally boiling dogs:
Mr Brett Allan, who declared that he could be a NTDM trustee if he so wished, may well have encouraged Ms Helm by his tweets to believe such hideous claims; as with all malicious rumours, even crueller embellishment is often a consequence.
Apart from accusing Mrs Yang of boiling dogs, Ms Wendy Helm (AKA Ms Cassel) escalated her intimidation on Twitter to coerce the concerned public; that they cease asking questions or Mrs Yang would “have big problems”.
While Ms de Cadenet has gained a new champion in Ms Helm, (Ms Helm has also taken it upon herself to join Ms Alice Susan Harding to wage very nasty personal attacks on supporters of Mrs Yang), she lost her long time champion; Mrs Mary Robbins. A ‘whistleblowing’ account by Mary Robbins, one of charity’s bloggers and administrator, on her recent resignation THE TRUTH ABOUT JULIA Truth about Alice and Julia makes an interesting read.
NUTS AND BOLTS OF UK FUNDRAISING:
In the UK there are strict regulations in place to protect donors monies and ensure these monies are used for the purpose for which they were donated. According to the Institute of Fundraising:
A legal principle underpinning fundraising is that all funds raised for a particular cause must be used for that particular cause.”
“Charities should monitor and manage restricted fundraising activities, and communicate clearly with donors so that donors understand how their money will be used. It is important that charities ensure proper stewardship of all contributions, and ensure that restricted donations are used to support the cause in accordance with the donor’s intentions,
As the original statement on the fundraiser specified that all money raised was to be used to support Mrs Yang and her animals, the charity are obliged to use the funds for this purpose.
CONCLUSION: HAND OVER MRS YANG’S FUND, OR GIVE IT BACK TO THE DONORS
The management of the charity are on record as indicating, directly or indirectly, that Mrs Yang is not deserving of the restricted fund. We hope that the remainder/majority of the fund is intact, properly held in a separate bank account, and has not been spent on other projects. Consensus of opinion is that the charity will continue to refuse to release any more money to Mrs Yang, therefore the only legal solution to this impasse is to refund all donations to the donors and return every penny of Gift Aid received to HMRC. Since the charity management have shown themselves to be unworthy of public trust it would be essential for the accounting of the fund to be audited by a qualified and reputable third party. It must be strongly emphasized that the costs of the onerous exercise of refunding the money should be borne by the charity and not be funded from the donations gifted to Mrs Yang.
Winter is imminent in China, dogs and cats need feeding, medicating and protecting from the elements. The donors must receive their donations refunded quickly so that those who still have the wish to send aid to Mrs Yang can forward the refunds directly to Mrs Yang.
The Charities Commission has prevaricated long enough over this case; if they continue to refuse to protect donors and vulnerable beneficiaries then they are less than useless. By inaction the Commission will be seen to collude in bringing UK charity into disrepute and making an ass of UK law; not only in the eyes of the British public but in the eyes of the world.
Concerned members of the public have raised the matter with the UK’s national fraud and internet crime reporting centre, Action Fraud UK, who have advised that donors contact them through their online portal. If enough donors complain this will trigger the National Fraud Investigation Bureau to open an investigation into the charity.
Photographs obtained this week reveal where Mrs Yang has been spending the funds she has received to date: on a new shelter in Tianjin, China, and it’s looking good!!
In a major development, photographs have now been released showing the new shelter Mrs Yang has managed to secure for her dogs. Spacious, clean and tidy, the photographs reveal Mrs Yang’s intention to continue to care for the dogs to the best of her ability. Improvements to the shelter are ongoing and should be completed in the next few weeks.
Over the last few months there have been defamatory reports coming from both China and the West of the poor condition of Mrs Yang’s shelters, although it was well known before the fundraiser that Mrs Yang and some of her rescues were living in a dilapidated tenement complex in Tianjin. Her explanation was that because of her limited resources she put food for her animals before rent. Statements reporting that Mrs Yang is an animal abuser because of the appalling conditions of that accommodation, from which she was previously unable to move, have been extremely damaging to Mrs Yang’s reputation and to her health.
Mrs Yang is being subjected to the most hateful of smear campaigns, she is being called a hoarder, a trader in dogs for meat, an employer of mafia type thugs, a greedy profiteer, and an animal abuser. Little doubt remains that the smear campaign was initiated by the UK registered charity ‘World Protection for Dogs and Cats in the Meat Trade’ AKA ‘No To Dog Meat (NTDM)’ in an attempt to avoid sending Mrs Yang the majority of the £80k+ that was raised for her through an online fundraising platform.
Due to the expense of securing the new shelter, Mrs Yang is now in urgent need of food for her dogs. Winter is on the way and supplies are running out fast. Can you help? Please give a donation directly to Mrs Yang’s account to help her and the dogs get through the next few months.
Bank Name: INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA
Tianjin Chentangzhuang Branch
Account No: 0302845001009282956
Account Name: Ai Yun, YANG
Xiaoyun Yang’s Cell Phone: 13164073263
N.B Trf via Western Union example of fees 50$ 5$ fee ~~ £50 £2.90 fee
In a previous blog A Conspiracy of Charity ~ East meets West. we examined and queried in detail a copy of a lengthy statement called ‘It Is Time That Ms.Yang Xiaoyun Gives an Explanation ~ A Joint Statement from Chinese Animal Protection Groups‘ issued by ‘Vshine Animal Protection Group’, a local HSI partner organization in China. This statement, dated September 9, 2015, was produced by four people who ostensibly took it upon themselves to ‘investigate’ Mrs Yang (Yang Xiaoyun). However, recent FB posts and comments made by Peter Li, a China policy specialist of Humane Society International, have now brought into question involvement of HSI in that ‘Joint Statement’. The statement published on Weibo dated September 9, 2015 was accompanied by a list of 60 Chinese animal welfare groups purporting to endorse the statement. We understand that some of the groups listed objected to being included and can only wonder if other groups may have also queried their inclusion?
On September 16 2015 the four person investigation team paid a visit to Mrs Yang in Tianjin; subsequently publishing another statement called ‘An Investigative Report on the Conditions of Yang Xiaoyun’s Shelter in Tianjin‘ on Weixin dated September 21 2015 (bilingual version). While this report, English version, is being used on western social media to reinforce the current campaign to defame Mrs Yang, the rebuttals (see below) by, and on behalf of, Mrs Yang have been ignored.
Readers of our series of blogs about Mrs Yang will be aware of the large sum of money involved; one can only wonder if this has any bearing on why these reports are being produced, and if so, who commissioned them, and for what reason. Mrs Yang has been offering sanctuary to dogs and cats for almost two decades, so one would think these allegations would have been brought to the public attention many years ago if indeed concerns were so serious regarding the welfare of the animals she has rescued; be they strays or in fact dogs/cats rescued from Yulin. However, this public ‘outrage’ by animal welfare agencies in China seems to have arisen since the No To Dog Meat charity fundraiser appealed to the public to donate to help Mrs Yang in June 2015; where were all these outraged animal welfare groups and activists 5 years, last year, or even 6 months ago?
Not a lot more need be said by us about the highly defamatory report produced by the ‘4-people-visit-team’, other than noting the lack of an ‘official’ comment via the charity CEO Julia de Cadenet, apart from her speaking to a journalist (rather than directly to the donors) via a New York Times China blog. Mrs Yang’s simple, but powerful, statement of rebuttal of the report, published on Weibo, we have had translated into English.
We hope that readers will find the time to read both the ‘4-people-visit-team’ so-called investigative report and the responses made by, and on behalf of, Mrs Yang. It is important to point out that the team only visited Mrs Yang’s ‘new’ shelter accommodation at Tianjin. Comments are most welcome.
MRS YANG REBUTTAL TO INVESTIGATIVE REPORT – 22 SEPTEMBER 2015:
Does the so-called Animal Protection Organization have the right to investigate other organizations and individuals?
With regards to the so-called “investigation” conducted by a 4-people-visit-team and their untruthful report afterwards, we hereby issue our statement as follows:
Regarding the police: They arrived at our shelter without notifying us in advance. Since we did not know the purpose of their visit, and because of the intrusion we experienced previously, and for the safety of dogs and people, we chose to call the police. And it is proven that calling the police was the wisest choice we made. We went through the night peacefully thanks to this third party. We made an appointment with them to visit the next day. Since Auntie Yang saw someone in their team who was a friend she had known for over a decade, Auntie Yang naturally lowered her guard and let them enter the shelter. This was the first and biggest mistake we made. When there were confrontations between the two parties, there were no witnesses. The next day when we arrived at the shelter, Auntie Yang’s son was already there. With strangers in the shelter, who didn’t identify themselves, he told them not to take any pictures and videos. From the pictures, it is shown that the dogs were not yet in the cages. Whenever we enter we must have something in our hands to urge the dogs to move, and such a tool was exaggerated as “a 30-yr-old heavily built man holding a steel stick threatening us not to film… Yang told him to stop”. As everyone has their entire original article, I’ll just specify those parts in which they purposely altered the truth. And the truth is Auntie’s son was holding a broom, a tool that is used to urge the dogs to move. This is already confirmed by Jiang Hong in the 4-people-team who clearly described that it was a broom. I asked her why she said it was a “steel stick” when she clearly knew it was just a broom. She did not give me a direct answer.
Since both parties did not take videos of the shelter, the situation of the shelter became mysterious to those who are concerned about the case of Yang XiaoYun. Everybody who works in a shelter knows there will be faeces and urine everywhere in the morning when there are dogs in the shelter. It takes time to clean, and this can’t be controlled. With the lack of workers, we are doing our best to keep the shelter clean. We only have one worker and limited ability. But how did that so-called investigation report tell the truth? “Extremely filthy, urine & faeces everywhere, intolerably stinky” are the phrases they used. What are they trying to reveal to the world? That Yang XiaoYun’s shelter is a dump? How would you react if I came to your shelter and discovered urine & faeces everywhere and immediately announced to the world that your shelter is a filthy dump? Don’t your dogs pee & poo? Don’t you hire any workers to clean?
Regarding skin conditions, when the 4-people-team mentioned about the skin diseases, we indicated that our shelters do have dogs with skin problems. As most of the dogs we rescue are strays, it is very common for strays to have skin diseases. Everybody who runs animal shelters should know this. They provided some suggestions and we modestly accepted. We also told them that the Beijing-Tianjin urgency medical team, and CangHai team, has always been treating our animals. Beijing Pet Hospital is the organization that is treating the 707 dogs, and there are discussions about setting up a surgery room with Garfield team providing a surgery bed & equipment. But in their article, they described “Look at this shelter, 85% are having skin diseases of different levels.” Where did they get that 85%? Did they count them one by one?
About a female dog’s shedding uterus: I don’t want to explain, except it is a male dog. Did you even look clearly at what is the precise condition? And you made a judgement? The CangHai team have already taken that dog. Their vet will tell the truth with pictures!
About the number of dogs:
Did you really count? How many of our shelters did you go to? We let you go to the abandoned building, we let you go to the 707 shelter, but why didn’t you go? Didn’t you want to investigate, to tell the truth? You didn’t even go to all our shelters, how did you tell the truth?
About donations:
I took out a big pile of foreign donations receipts, explained to everyone how much we have received from overseas in detail. Did anyone raise any questions? Who said “now we can confirm you did not receive much money, confirm you only received about GBP 10,000 donations from overseas”? And now you altered the story!
An episode:
During our meeting, one person from their team mentioned about the past where they had taken 2 dogs from our shelter. Since it was heard that dogs from Yang XiaoYun couldn’t make it out alive, they requested to take dogs that were relocated to Yang XiaoYun from others. In the end, 2 healthy dogs were taken. The rumour was broken. But how come they did not mention this in the report?
Another episode:
Seeing all the ham at our shelter entrance on the day of their visit, they said “You bought so much ham, so you’re not starving the dogs. But ham is not good for dogs, can easily cause skin diseases”.
As of now, I still cannot accept the fact that these people said they were here to help us, and that the article they issued is extreme and inciting. We were 100% modest in accepting their advice in the hope of a fair and objective investigation result. But they wrote a deluded and misleading article to defame a 70-yr-old elderly lady. Were you here to help the dogs or endanger the dogs? You want to starve the dogs to death by blocking all Yang XiaoYun’s financial sources? You said you wanted to resolve the issue, otherwise it’s no good for all the people working in animal rescue. True, you’re not beating just one Yang XiaoYun, you’re actually beating the entire animal rescue community. If you think Yang XiaoYun is bad, then who can do better than Yang XiaoYun?! Who could guarantee that they wouldn’t become the next “Yang XiaoYun”?! Now with so many people saying things and doing things to distance themselves, I understand they’re protecting themselves, but does what you say and what you do really just represent you individually, and not represent any organizations? Is what you do and what you say the true thinking of the representatives of all animal rescue organizations?
Lastly, we still want to thank the 4-people-team who came to investigate. We modestly accept your advice, and will continue to improve our shelter management. We welcome you to investigate again in 6 months time. There’s no need to climb walls, our door will be wide opened.
(Extra note: Face-changing is a special technique used in Sichuan Opera art to create characters. It is a romantic way to reveal a character’s emotion in the drama. “Face-Changing” has been put on Sichuan opera stage and has become a very unique art.)
Chinese Citizens Speak Out Against Mrs Yang’s 4 Inquisitors.
Comments from Wang Li on Weibo – September 21, 2015:
Despicable people, STOP! Yang XiaoYun is just an elderly woman, an elderly woman who sold her house to save dogs, she doesn’t represent any group, she doesn’t represent any organization, she only represents herself individually. It is the media, and those animal activists across the country, that have put this elderly woman in turmoil, and pushed her towards the highest edge of public opinion. How many have harmed her during this period? How many have insulted her? How many have silenced her? She’s scared, isn’t that normal? Did you count how much she needs to feed so many dogs everyday? Did you see her cry when seeing the dogs die and there’s nothing she can do? There are so many programs praising her work on Tencent and PhTV, why not share them across?
From your original statement, you said you’re from Chongqing, Chengdu, and Xian, yet the place to be investigated is in Tianjin. So who do you represent? Do you represent those 3 regions? Do you represent the persons-in-charge of the animal protection groups in those 3 regions? Or all animal protection activists in those 3 regions? Were you officially authorized by them? Or do you represent those who question and boycott Yang XiaoYun? Or do you represent all activist in China? I believe you’re not qualified, not legally, not socially, nor politically, all of you are not qualified. I therefore want to know whom you represent? And who authorized you? What was the purpose of your visit?
Abuse is the infliction of injury or insult on another person, and the abuser receives satisfaction and excitement during the process. Behavior of abuse includes beating, biting, wiping, flogging, strangling…etc. Did Yang XiaoYun behave in these ways? Do you have any eye witness? Do you have any visual and audio evidence? Who made such accusation of abuse, who is the judge? Court in Tianjin? The highest court in China? Or simply from the words of those who boycott Yang XiaoYun?
500 representatives from animal groups defend Mrs Yang.
We only have rough translation of this screen shot:
“500 representatives from animal groups confronted & scolded Chen Mincai (of ChongqingSmall Animal Protection Association) for writing bad reports about Mrs Yang. The 4 ‘investigators’ were initially very nice to her & told her they would help her improve her shelter. They were so nice, she even invited them for dinner. But they didn’t do what they promised & even worse than not helping they said such bad things about her.”
INVESTIGATIVE REPORT FROM CHINESE ACTIVISTS – SEPT 20th 2015:
Submitted by the Representatives of the Four Animal Protection Groups on behalf of the Co-signing Organizations 20.9.2015
We, Chen Mincai (director of Chongqing Small Animal Protection Association), Chen Yunlian (founder of Chengdu Shuangliu Home of Love Animal Rescue Center), Jiang Hong (founder, Xi’an Red Pomegranate Companion Animal Protection Association), and Yue Yue (member of Beijing Garfield Cat Animal Protection Volunteers), would like to present to you a report on our visit on September 17th to the shelter of Yang Xiaoyun in Tianjin. To seek truth from facts, have first-hand information, set the record straight, and to verify the claims made by the critics regarding Ms. Yang’s shelter and dogs, claims cited in the joint statement co-signed by animal protection groups across the country, we, on our own expenses, arrived in Tianjin to conduct the on-site investigation. The findings presented here are what we saw and experienced at Yang Xiaoyun’s shelter.
1. Our interactions with Yang Xiaoyun and her family
We arrived at Yang’s old shelter in the afternoon of September 16. The shelter was empty. Dogs had been moved to Yang’s new shelter. When we showed up at Yang’s new shelter, we saw an agitated and hostile Yang who went so far as to call the police. Seeing that we were handling the situation calmly, Yang might have realized that she had overreacted to our surprise appearance. She agreed to have us back to the shelter the next day morning. We arrived at the shelter in the morning of September 17th. With Yang’s consent, we walked into the shelter. However, we were met by a 30-year old and physically strong man who was holding an steel rod in one hand and taking pictures of us on the other hand. He shouted that no picture taking was allowed. We later learned from Yang that this was her son. We also met with Yang’s daughter-in-law who was with us for the rest of the day.
2. Photos and Videos
Yang’s son made it clear to us that no photos and videos were allowed in the shelter as soon as we entered the shelter. To avoid conflict, we did not take photos or shoot videos.
3. The number of dogs in the shelter we visited
According to Ms. Yang, this shelter is 666 square meters in size. We agree that the size of the shelter was about 1 mu (666 square meters). As to the number of dogs in this shelter, Yang could not provide an accurate number. The shelter has some constructions that could take up about 100 square meters. The rest of the more than 500 square meters is good for 300 to 400 dogs. If there were 500 dogs, Yang’s estimate of the dogs there, the shelter would be extremely crowded. We therefore estimated that there were no more than 400 dogs.
Yang said that she had two shelters of 1 mu in space each. The third shelter is smaller in size. The number of dogs in the other two shelters is unknown. We believe the number of dogs in the smallest shelter should be smaller. It is up to others who care about the dongs in Yang’s shelter to find out the number of dogs in the other two shelters. We do not want to speculate here.
4. The total number of dogs under Yang’s care
How many dogs Yang has under her care? This is a major concern of the critics in China and overseas. Yang claimed not too long ago in a program of Tianjin TV that she had more than 4000 dogs in her shelters. We asked Yang if she really had this many dogs. She replied that the 4000 dog number was suggested to her by the producer of Tianjin TV. We asked further how many dogs she had indeed then. She said that she should have more than 2000 dogs.
Therefore, Yang admitted that her claim of 4000 dogs on Tianjin TV was a far cry from the 2000 dogs she said she had in her shelters. Yang’s shelter is altogether 3 mu (1998 square meters) in size. Three mu is hardly big enough for 2000 dogs.
5. Conditions of the Dogs
The dogs in the shelter we visited were in shocking conditions. We are extremely worried about the dogs. More than 85% of the 400 or so dogs have skin illnesses of various severity. Yang admitted that the dogs were in very poor health conditions. The skin problems were so serious among some dogs who barely had any hair left on their bodies. Others may have suffered a long time from the skin problems. One of the female dogs had her womb out of her genitals. The poor dog was followed by a few big dogs. Seeing the shocking conditions of the dogs, we, animal protectionists ourselves, were at a loss for words to describe our shock and disbelief.
6. Shelter Sanitation
A clean and well-maintained shelter is the first defense against illnesses and the spread of illnesses. Yang’s shelter, utterly dirty, covered with dog waste, and offensively smelly, was not cleaned for two days. Yang admitted that no one had cleaned the shelter for two days. We pointed out that daily cleaning is a must. We asked if Yang was following this rule. Her answer shocked us and was totally unacceptable. She said: “You would have dog waste on the ground even if you clean the shelter eight times a day.”
Seeing the ugly situation of the shelter, we decided to help remove the dog waste. Yet, to our surprise, there were no tools for cleaning the shelter. The only thing we found was a dust collection pan that was broken. We wondered if workers who have to bring cleaning tools from their own homes. In desperation, we purchased some tools for cleaning from a nearby store.
7. Shelter Workers
In response to our criticism of the shelter being unacceptably filthy, Yang and her daughter-in-law defended their negligence saying “Yang had difficulty doing it all by herself.” We told them that shelters with hundreds of dogs and cats must have permanent workers to take care of the dogs and the shelter. By looking at the unacceptable sanitation situation and the fact that there were no even tools for shelter cleaning, we believe that Yang hired nobody to do the job.
8. Yang’s Admissions
Yang admitted that she failed in three areas:
She admitted that she exaggerated the number of the dogs under her care in media interviews.
She admitted that her shelter was poorly managed and that the shelter was filthy, illness was prevalent, and management was nonexistent.
She admitted that her dogs were in poor health conditions.
Yang made the following promise: She would improve conditions in her shelter in the next 3 to 6 months.
9. A summary of our findings and recommendations
Criticism that Yang’s shelters are filthy is fair. It is not libel or slander. It is fact. We confirmed that the criticism was correct. Yang admitted that her shelters were dirty.
The criticism that Yang has inflated her dog numbers is fair and has been supported by fact. She admitted that she exaggerated her dog number on Tianjin TV.
The criticism that Yang has ignored her animals and that her shelter is far from a “paradise” was supported by what we have witnessed. The prevalence of the skin problems in her shelter is a living proof of Yang’s failure to care for her dogs.
We recommend:
Yang should attach greater importance to the welfare of the dogs under her care. She should take immediate measures to:
hire full-time workers to ensure that the dogs are taken care for 12 hours a day and to feed the dogs, do cleaning, and handle other shelter matters.
start immediate veterinary intervention to help the dogs with skin problems.
ensure that the dogs are fed twice a day and they have clean water around the o’clock.
Open the shelters to local animal lovers, allow people to take photos and welcome volunteers
Be transparent and release on a regular basis fund-raising results and conditions of the dogs.
Reputed to be recordings of conversations between Ms de Cadenet CEO of the UK registered charity #1154524 ‘WORLD PROTECTION FOR DOGS AND CATS IN THE MEAT TRADE’ (WPDCMT) AKA ‘No To Dog Meat’ (NTDM) and an ex-colleague. Listen to the woman’s views on interracial couples, her threats to hire a hitman to put bullets in the head of an ex trustee of her charity and her promises to destroy Jill Robinson, head of the international charity ‘Animals Asia’. The woman’s voice in the recordings is quite distinctive and can be compared to her voice on recent videos published on behalf of her charity on the Notodogmeat FaceBook
Complaint Review: International Animal Rescue Foundation, Animal Buddy, SayNotodogmeat.net/ Michele Brown, John Williamson, Amber Donoghue
AUDIO 1
AUDIO 2
I have decided to republish these recordings, fortuitously saved in my library from the YouTube publication, because among the many other lies in the ripoff report, named above, is the following accusation that is long overdue in being addressed.
THE FALSE ACCUSATION POSTED ON THE RIPOFF REPORT:
“2014 John Williamson harassed the No To Dog Meat CEO Julia Cadenet with early morning/late night phone calls. While doing this he recorded her without her knowledge and his friend altered the conversation to make Julia appear suspect. The videos were however taken down from youtube.
If you have listened to those clips, then know this, John Williamson did not put the whole conversation up, and because of this people have turned against No To Dog Meat. Without knowing the full…
In spite of the fiasco surrounding the restricted fund raised in 2015 for Mrs Yang’s dog sanctuary in China by UK registered charity #1154524 ‘WORLD PROTECTION FOR DOGS AND CATS IN THE MEAT TRADE’ (WPDCMT) AKA ‘No To Dog Meat’ (NTDM) reaching the news media, the two trustees of the charity have steadfastly refused to disclose what has happened to over 90% of the money raised.
No To Dog Meat’s disappearing funds. Dogs Today April 2016 issue
No To Dog Meat’s disappearing funds. Dogs Today April 2016 issue
While Julia de Cadenet contents herself with bombarding IPSO (Independent Press Standards Organisation) with tweets because it refused to uphold her complaint over the Daily Mirror article about her charity……..
Meme by @canklehunter on Twitter
…….Mr David Merrill, joint trustee with Ms de Cadenet of NTDM, decided to speak out by sending gross comments to this site. Mr Merrill having no idea who runs this site, irregardless, chooses to vent his obnoxious spleen on random women, promising that “The longer this goes on ladies the longer each of you are going to end up popped off. One slowly by one.”
David Merrill NTDM trustee sends obscene abuse and death threats (October 2016)
VICTORIA CHARLOTTE, AN ENGLISH WOMAN LIVING IN SPAIN, TRAVELED FOR THREE DAYS FROM SPAIN TO TIANJIN TO VISIT AND WORK ALONGSIDE MRS YANG
Coming to the end of winter in March 2016 – Tianjin Stray Animal Rescue Centre aka Common Home For All will be moving to their new location once renovation is completed.
Timecode : 0:47 – 3:32 – meetup point at old shelter @ March 2016
Timecode : 3:34 – 7:41 – visit new shelter @ March 2016
“Madam Yang : You’re a diamond… they cannot break you”. The new place will be a positive influence to move forward with your head held high.
“Your greatest glory is not in never falling but of you rising everytime you fall” ~ Confucius
…
SADLY, AFTER MRS YANG HAD FINALLY INSTALLED HER RESCUES IN THEIR NEW HOME, TORRENTIAL RAIN AND FLOODING HIT TIANJIN CAUSING SEVERE DAMAGE TO THE SHELTER.
Victoria, seen in the videos visiting Mrs Yang in March, on her return from China formed the ”Friends Of Yang’
This was a devastating setback for Friends Of Yang as they had established an excellent working relationship with a local vet and had allocated any funds raised to pay for veterinary care, neutering and medicines. The small group, on instructions from Mrs Yang, don’t send money to Mrs Yang but instead they pay vets and suppliers directly. The precious medical contingency fund retained, after Mrs Yang’s veterinary store had been stocked, has had to be redirected to buy building materials and to pay the builders.
NOW THE RACE IS ON TO FUND REPAIRS TO THE SHELTER BEFORE WINTER.
“Here are the latest accounts for public viewing showing donations and expenditures. As you can see our funds are very low and we are struggling to find the money to complete Madam Yang’s shelter. One more roof is still remaining to finance. 2,000 dogs and cats are depending on us for them to survive the harsh Tianjin winter. When Madam Yang went to Yulin this year she purposely looked for the weakest and the sickest animals. These animals are some of the most abused cases and they cannot afford to be cold this winter. Please help us to help Madam Yang keep the animals dry & warm this winter. We are racing against the clock. Please donate with PayPal at: donate@friendsofyang.com or https://www.gofundme.com/HelpMrsYangAnimals. All donations no matter how small are greatly appreciated. Thank you ” (https://www.facebook.com/friendsOY/photos/pcb.1086814748105036/1086814634771714/?type=3)
NB in 2015 a UK registered charity used Mrs Yang’s identity, images, persona and international reputation as a rescuer of dogs from the Yulin dog meat festival (held in China on the summer solstice), to call specifically for donations for her and her shelter.To date that charity has refused to release more than 10% of the £100K+ donated. To support a petition (currently with 8197 supporters) asking for an investigation into what happened to the missing £90k+ of donors money that was given to help Mrs Yang help her cats and dogs please click this link: https://www.change.org/p/investigate-the-uk-registered-charity-known-as-no-to-dog-meat-ntdm-aka-the-world-protection-of-dogs-and-cats-in-the-meat-trade
This is a difficult call, reluctantly, we have to agree that Alice Susan Harding can no longer remain publicly unchallenged. She might be genuinely mentally ill, as she describes herself, and as such our site would normally be reluctant to share blogs about such a derelict persona, although we have, from time to time in our blogs, posted examples of her deviant social media attacks. However, the detailed evidence (about the cruel and indiscriminant targeting and stalking by Alice of private individuals on pure malicious supposition) supplied on https://stopaliceabusing.wordpress.com is, from our own observations, indisputable; and the collusion with her crackpot tweets by the CEO, Julia de Cadenet, of the UK registered charity #1154524 ‘WORLD PROTECTION FOR DOGS AND CATS IN THE MEAT TRADE’ (WPDCMT) AKA ‘No To Dog Meat’ (NTDM) can only ring clanging alarm bells.
The charity trustees had apparently chosen to deliver the long awaited news of Mrs Yang’s fund, to worldwide donors and the public, (in the middle of a working week) at this less than practical venue. 
Charity Observer 