Yang Xiao Yun (杨晓芸) and “A PLACE CALLED HOME”



, , , , , , ,


The Yes And Now Group have published an interview with Mr Kenneth Chong, Co-Founder & CEO of the Peace Prize Foundation on their petition update (this is a new petition currently running at 4915 signatures). 

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. 

PLEASE Don't Hurt Themscreenshot-mankind.com.my 2015-11-18 20-06-21

PLEASE Don't Hurt Me 3screenshot-mankind.com.my 2015-11-18 20-06-21


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.

❮Q❯: Hello Ken. Thank you for talking with us today regarding your comment about Mrs Yang on Peter Egan’s Facebook page:

“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.

Judge for yourself what is the edge of the coin.

************************Please watch************************
“A PLACE CALLED HOME” Mrs Yang October 2015

************************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”.

************************Please share************************
To share the petition asking for an investigation that may help Mrs Yang help her dogs, please see 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


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.

Julia de Cadenet Admitting Mrs Yang powerless to refute allegations made on Twitter 3Nov2015

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.

Julia de Cadenet reviling Mrs Yang 15 nov

Nov 17 2015

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?

Please also read Let Sleeping Dogs Lie? No To Dog Meat Exposed/





When ‘Charities’ Attack: How I Became Target of Online Abuse

Dr Dan writes about his very personal experience of online cyber abuse. “When ‘Charities’ Attack: How I Became Target of Online Abuse”
Dr Daniel Allen is: Commentator of Nature, Animal Geographer, Otter Expert, Author, TV Host @AnimalHouseTV, @HuffPostUK Blogger. @APGAW member. Dr Daniel Allen on Twitter @Dr_Dan_1 Tweets about #AnimalRealities.
Dr Dan supplies interesting quotes about the UK charity in question from Mr Peter Egan: much loved and admired Film, TV and Stage actor/director, and tireless voice for the voiceless and vulnerable. The recording of threats by the NTDM CEO, referred to by Mr Egan,”..Indeed there is an audio recording of Julia De Cadenet threatening to destroy both Jill Robinson and myself.” can be found on http://whoisnotodogmeat.com/2015/03/31/rebuttal-of-lies-posted-on-a-ripoff-report/

An online petition: The ‘Yes And Now Group’ are Petitioning William Shawcross, Chairman of the Charity Commission and 7 others: INVESTIGATE the UK registered charity #1154524 known as ‘No To Dog Meat’ (NTDM aka WPDCMT)

Animal Realities

Online abuse is everywhere on the internet. It has become an international pastime. To be honest, I never expected to be on the receiving end, but for the past few months it has been a very real experience. My name is Dr Daniel Allen, I’m an animal geographer, TV presenter and APGAW member who explores the cultural significance of animals around the world. I have a passion for animal welfare and have become known for my candid observations.


When the global media styled Chinese pensioner Mrs Yang (Yang Xiaoyun) as the “symbol of hope” of the Yulin Dog Meat Festival, the world wanted to help her dogs. Fundraisers were set up. The public kindly donated. Lots of money was raised, but where did the donations go? This simple question made me the target of an online abuse I found both shocking and personally intrusive. I’ve decided to share my…

View original post 823 more words

Rotten Apples In the Charity Barrel~~ could the UK Charity Commission care less?



, , , , , , , , ,

The ‘Yes And Now Group’ are Petitioning William Shawcross, Chairman of the Charity Commission and 7 others: INVESTIGATE the UK registered charity #1154524 known as ‘No To Dog Meat’ (NTDM aka WPDCMT)

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 option under 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.

NEW2 NEW3 NEW4 NEW5 NEW6 ENHANCED New pics From Angus1 ENHANCED New pics From Angus2 ENHANCED New pics From Angus3 ENHANCED New pics From Angus4

Petitioning William Shawcross, Chairman of the Charity Commission and 7 others INVESTIGATE the UK registered charity #1154524 known as ‘No To Dog Meat’ (NTDM aka WPDCMT)

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.


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


Charity freezes fund while dogs go cold and hungry



, , , , , , , , , ,

julia oct 25

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.

An online petition: The ‘Yes And Now Group’ are Petitioning William Shawcross, Chairman of the Charity Commission and 7 others: INVESTIGATE the UK registered charity #1154524 known as ‘No To Dog Meat’ (NTDM aka WPDCMT)

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.

However, 2 weeks ago, on 11th of October 2015, this announcement was spotted on a small sister Facebook page of the better known No To Dog Meat page:

Announced By NTDMThe 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’

Sowing st2015-10-25 16-54-29

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.

(Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge


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.



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:

Insane tweets Wendy J Helmscreenshot-twitter.com 2015-10-22 16-42-53

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.

Brett Allen calling Mrs Y DMT trader12022407_10205883879148378_2533220364118449430_o

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.


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.


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.


An online petition: The ‘Yes And Now Group’ are Petitioning William Shawcross, Chairman of the Charity Commission and 7 others: INVESTIGATE the UK registered charity #1154524 known as ‘No To Dog Meat’ (NTDM aka WPDCMT)




BOKDAYS Film Exposed – a Cautionary Tale

In this blog we have shared, Ex-trustee and ex-director of the UK registered charity # 1154524 ‘WORLD PROTECTION FOR DOGS AND CATS IN THE MEAT TRADE’ (WPDCMT) AKA ‘No To Dog Meat’ (NTDM) explains how she was duped by the charity CEO, Julia de Cadenet, Ms de Cadenet also (according to this account of events) set about by false representation of the ‘Bokdays’ video to deliberately exploit the public for donations to the charity. Sound familiar? Some background to the behavior by the officers/trustees of the animal charity during 2013 can also be found on http://whoisnotodogmeat.com/

“Home Sweet Home – Tianjin Common Home”



, , , , , , , , ,

An online petition: The ‘Yes And Now Group’ are Petitioning William Shawcross, Chairman of the Charity Commission and 7 others: INVESTIGATE the UK registered charity #1154524 known as ‘No To Dog Meat’ (NTDM aka WPDCMT)

Fantastic news coming out of China……

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.


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


Allegations against Mrs Yang escalate.


, , ,

The ‘Yes And Now Group’ are Petitioning William Shawcross, Chairman of the Charity Commission and 7 others: INVESTIGATE the UK registered charity #1154524 known as ‘No To Dog Meat’ (NTDM aka WPDCMT)

If you have not read the investigative report and Mrs Yang’s response – please feel free to read them HERE.


Within days of the ‘investigation’ into Mrs Yang appearing, another article appeared in the New York Times ‘sinosphere blog’, written by Shaojie Huang, who is the Senior Editor at the New York Times Chinese.

While you can click on the link below to read the article and click on live links within the article, we have also uploaded screen shots at the end of this post.

Animal Rights Groups in China Accuse Yulin Dog Rescuer of Misleading Public

This article appeared on September 22nd and has certainly been doing the ’rounds of social media’, especially with the ardent NTDM supporters who have been citing this as ‘proof’ that Mrs Yang is in fact an ‘animal abuser’!  Here are just a couple of those posts, should you find it rather unbelievable.

It seems supporters of the charity appear to have information that nobody else does, including Mr Brett Allan who clearly states below that he is very involved with the charity and could be a trustee but can’t commit to the job fully.  Meanwhile, while the CEO has repeatedly stated that none of the social media accounts speak on behalf of the charity, she allows the supporters to say whatever they like with no recourse. Not the best use of social media for a global charity in our humble opinion.

Brett Allen - very involved with the charity

Brett Allan – very involved with the charity

Brett Allen and NTDM Twitter posts

Brett Allan and NTDM Twitter posts

Mrs Yang has a 'gang of thugs'?

Mrs Yang has a ‘gang of thugs’?

Mrs Yang known to sell to meat traders?

Mrs Yang known to sell to meat traders?

Mrs Yang and 'mafia types'

Mrs Yang and ‘mafia types’

Mrs Yang an animal hoarder?

Mrs Yang an animal hoarder?

Mrs Yang selling dogs?

Mrs Yang selling dogs?

What is the agenda behind all of this?

Getting back to the article itself, which appears to be fairly balanced, the lack of actual ‘facts’ is somewhat concerning – including:

  • Where, when and how much money was raised during the ‘Televised Fundraiser’, and who initiated it.
  • No link to the ‘open letter’ by dozens of groups.
  • Mr Chen has known Mrs Yang for more than a decade, yet only NOW questions her? Did you not feel the need to ask him why he has waited so long?
  • How can anyone count hundreds of dogs running around and then come up with a figure of 300 – 400? Which shelter was this count obtained from?
  • No amounts shown of funds transferred by the Charity, which considering the ongoing debates on exact totals would have gone a long way to clarify exactly how much Mrs Yang is supposed to have received.  While it may have taken a while to get both sides in agreement on totals, this surely should have been a priority.
  • Anonymous sources, while acknowledged, rarely carry much weight as they are free to say whatever they like.  With so many concerned groups involved surely a few of those would have been more than happy to speak on the record?
  • Why did the charity CEO and Trustee feel the need to make an ‘unannounced visit’ to the beneficiary of their huge fundraiser, yet managed to somehow let other activists know exactly when they would arrive at Mrs Yang’s so they too could turn up ‘unannounced’? (See videos previously posted). According to the charity they were already in close contact with Mrs Yang and her family.
  • Like many other articles, this one also alludes to dog numbers – be they current, totals over several years, or even several decades.  Even the Charity fundraiser states that she has rescued 6,000 dogs over 20 years.  Mrs Yang should have been asked and it made clear exactly how many dogs she has now, rescued this year and any other relevant detail.

While there are more questions than answers, yet again, regarding Mrs Yang’s fundraiser and what appears to be a now public attack on her, we still await the Official Report, and the Press Conference from the Charity CEO which may or may not confirm the serious allegations made against Mrs Yang. We hope Mrs Yang is consulted prior to its release in order to respond.

Peter Li, a China policy specialist of Humane Society International

In the NYT article, Mr Peter Li has made several comments, notably this:

Mr Li from HSI

Mr Li from HSI

Surely if there were so many allegations about Mrs Yang  Mr Li’s group should have investigated her operation? (Is that not what a Humane Society is for?)

And this:

Mr Li - questioning dog numbers and fundraising

Mr Li – questioning dog numbers and fundraising

Three days later however, Mr Li did share the article on his personal page and spoke of being shocked!

Mr Li - personal thoughts on NYT article

Mr Li – personal thoughts on NYT article

Also in a personal capacity he commented on a page set up on Facebook called “STOP Dog Charity Fraud” back on September 6th and 7th.

Comment Sept 6th

Comment Sept 6th

September 7th

September 7th

Of course Mr Li has every right to comment on anything as an individual, but as he is actually working for Humane Society International and having known about these ‘shocking revelations’ back in early September, we would have expected to see comments accordingly in the September 22nd article.

Mr Li is no newcomer to the goings on surrounding the dog meat trade in China, as can be seen from another article published in June 2015 stating that he has studied and written about animal protection and wildlife conservation in China for the past 15 years.

Indeed the article goes on to share a Q & A session with Mr Li specifically relating to the Yulin Dog Meat Festival, conditions of dogs rescued from the trucks and of his meetings with the meat traders and slaughterhouses themselves.

Some comments we have for Mr Li:

  • How does Mr Li know that “NTDM” is not the first donor if he and/or HSI have never actually investigated her – if indeed she needs to be investigated at all?
  • In a country as huge as China, why has Mr Li, like others, only now felt the need to speak out and for some reason only targeting Mrs Yang? Surely there are hundreds, if not thousands of ‘rescues’ and ‘shelters’ doing exactly the same thing over the last decade or two that should also have been under the same scrutiny.
Mr Li regarding Mrs Yang

Mr Li regarding Mrs Yang (Xiaoyun Yang) of Tianjin

For example, back in 2014 ANOTHER ‘Aunty Yang’ (Yang Hu Hua) of Yang Hu Hua shelter in Chongqing was rescuing dogs from Yulin.

Hand In Hand With Asia’s Animal Activists raised and sent funds to assist this other “Aunty Yang”, but when the shelter was inspected by Ruby Animal Rescue (China), dogs were found to be permanently incarcerated in stacked cages– something that is known as ‘warehousing’ a practice quite common with hoarders that slowly drives the dogs mad. So in fact terrible conditions and shelter practices were happening in Chongqing as recently as July 2014, yet for some reason Mr Li and his organization did not deem it necessary to investigate this rescuer? So one wonders who the ‘international organizations’ referred to below were.

We regret to announce that Aunty Yang in Chongqing has refused RAR’s follow-up visit, despite RAR providing a variety of options. We are currently working with international organizations to find a solution and will continue to provide you updates on our progress.”

The other Mrs Yang

Yang Yu Hua – found to be an animal hoarder

Sadly Ruby Animal Rescue changed their organization’s name and the blog post appears to have been lost in this transition.

We also noticed the Yang Hu Hua shelter is located in Chongqing, as is one of the signatories on the ‘Mrs Yang Investigation Report’ – namely Chen Mincai of Chongqing Small Animal Protection Association. Why did this association not feel the need to investigate a shelter that clearly turned out to be a hoarding situation back in 2014?

Facebook pages start to emerge:

For our readers information there appear to be several Facebook pages set up to spread the Mrs Yang story.  You can find them at the links below:

Yang is a Scam – appears to have been set up on September 8th 2015 – this page also ‘likes’ Stop Dog Charity Fraud and We Care by some strange coincidence.

STOP Dog Charity Fraud – appears to have been set up on September 6th 2015

We note that the above page has not posted anything new in recent weeks and feel this is possibly due to the admin of the page having had his account suspended awaiting verification of his identity.

We Care – appears to have been set up on August 22nd 2015

The We Care page is particularly interesting, in that originally it seems to have been set up to promote Mrs Yang. The screen shot below was posted by them on August 30th

Support for Mrs Yang August 30th

Support for Mrs Yang August 30th

Then by September 18th (just over 2 weeks later) they share the “Yang is a Scam” page, stating “This page that we found verifies what we have already known about ‎mrs yang.’

Change of loyalties?

Change of loyalties?

Do you not find this totally bizarre?

We leave our readers to make up their own minds about what is really going on regarding Mrs Yang, the Fundraiser for her (which has now had funds suspended by the Charity) and the sudden emergence of pages seemingly dedicated to discrediting her.




Mrs Yang Speaks Out in Response to Defamatory Report.



, , , , , , , ,

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.

An online petition: The ‘Yes And Now Group’ are Petitioning William Shawcross, Chairman of the Charity Commission and 7 others: INVESTIGATE the UK registered charity #1154524 known as ‘No To Dog Meat’ (NTDM aka WPDCMT)


 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.)

Link to original post on Weibo.

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?

Link to original post on Weibo

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 Chongqing Small 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.”

500reps defending


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:

  1. She admitted that she exaggerated the number of the dogs under her care in media interviews.
  2. She admitted that her shelter was poorly managed and that the shelter was filthy, illness was prevalent, and management was nonexistent.
  3. 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.

Screen Shot 09-27-15 at 03.24 AM




A Conspiracy of Charity ~ East meets West.


, , , , , , ,

A statement from ‘Vshine Animal Protection Group’, a local HSI partner organization in China, was sent to a member of the public concerned for Mrs Yang.

At first reading it appears to be a dreadful indictment of Mrs Yang. However, on closer examination more questions than answers are raised by this aggressive ‘Joint Statement from Chinese Animal Protection Groups’.

Mrs Yang has been rescuing and caring for dogs and cats for 20 years so why have these cosignatories of ‘A Joint Statement from Chinese Animal Protection Groups’ now decided to rally against her? And, why has this happened only after the visit to China by two of the trustees of the UK charity ‘World Protection of Dogs and Cats in the Meat Trade‘ AKA ‘No To Dog Meat’ (NTDM) still holding an estimated £80k+ of her money?

An online petition: The ‘Yes And Now Group’ are Petitioning William Shawcross, Chairman of the Charity Commission and 7 others: INVESTIGATE the UK registered charity #1154524 known as ‘No To Dog Meat’ (NTDM aka WPDCMT)


Before you read the statement below, we would suggest that you read the links (all relating to Yulin 2015):

“The 65-year-old dog lover, named Yang Xiaoyun, turned up at the market in Yulin yesterday, spending around 7,000 yuan to purchase over one hundred cats and dogs from sellers at the marketplace.” N.B. 7,000 yuan is approx. £700

11 activists spent 500,000 yuan at Yulin buying 1381 dogs  N.B. These activists are unrelated to Mrs Yang and sadly 2 months later only 400 dogs are reported as surviving. http://shanghaiist.com/2015/09/01/dogs-rescued-yulin-shelter.php

A Shanghai shelter struggles to help dogs rescued from Yulin festival N.B. an important statement from a Shanghai shelter describing what happens when public interest fades: “When the issue was at the forefront of the nation’s attention in July, the shelter was showered in funds and aid with dozens of volunteers, veterinarians and food coming in from all over the country, said Chang Fan, one of the shelter’s volunteers. Now that the attention has died down, however, the shelter has only three regular volunteers and struggles to make ends meet from donations. The dogs’ future thus still remains unclear despite their rescue” the report said.

Now, returning to the Vshine statement ~ we have reproduced the text word for word but, for ease of reading and commenting (in red), we are presenting the text in paragraphs.

Thank you for writing to us at VShine.
Yes, we co-signed this letter urging Ms. Yang to respond to the questions and serious concerns on the folllowing issues:
1. inflated dog number (She claims she has ober 4000 dogs in her shelter); yet eye-witness account believes there are no more than 1000 or even fewer in her shelters.
2. mass dog death due to neglect, failure to hire workers, refusal to provide vet services
3. lack of a proper shelter, and
4. other serious problems
Attached please find the English language version of the Joint Statement.
Any more questions, please let us know.
Dezhi Yu
Secretary General
It Is Time That Ms. Yang Xiaoyun Give an Explanation
A Joint Statement from Chinese Animal Protection Groups
When summer turns autumn, the Chinese animal protection community becomes turbulent. Standing at the center of the turmoil is Ms. Yang Xiaoyun (also called Yang Aiyun). Who created the turmoil, other than the small UK charity that is tenaciously withholding funds raised under UK law on restricted fundraising?

The photos and videos taken in Yang’s shelters in Tianjin revealed shocking conditions, hungry and thirsty dogs, a dead dog without head and covered with maggots, and a decomposed dog body that looked like a used rug. These images have gone viral in China and abroad, causing strong reactions.  Who have verified the origin of these images?

Charges abound saying that Ms. Yang has been using inflated dog numbers for aggressive fund-raising purposes, her hoarding dogs in dangerous illegal buildings, and her neglect of these dogs. Ms. Yang has so far failed to respond to these charges. Aggressive fundraising? It is doubtful that Mrs Yang even knew that the UK charity was raising money for her.

Ignoring the concerns, inquiries and charges from the public is no solution to the discontent of the public. It has on contrary encouraged more suspicions and criticism, causing potential damages to the image of China’s animal protection community as a whole. We would suggest that the ‘damage’ is being caused by the very people  determined to isolate and defame Mrs Yang.

Participants of China’s animal protection movement, if accepting public donation, have the responsibility to respond to the concerns, inquiries and questioning of the society. Ms. Yang, a long-time recipient of the financial and material help from the society, must proactively respond to the society. With this understanding and belief, animal protection groups cosigning this joint statement appeal to all the parties concerned to seek truth from facts by making a field investigation of and a visit to Ms. Yang’s facilities. From images & videos currently circulating, and a TV documentary in June 2015, it would seem that access to Mrs Yang’s facilities have already been obtained? 

The questionings and charges directed at Yang can be summarized as follows. First, Yang has been suspected of using inflated dog numbers for fund-raising purposes thus purposely misleading the public and donors in particular. Where is the proof of Mrs Yang attempting to mislead the public, rather, she was thrust into the public arena by the iconic photo of her kneeling to beg for the life of a dog at Yulin in 2014

Second, Yang has failed to comply with her own commitments made to her donors regarding releasing of the conditions of the dogs under her care. We cannot comment since we do not know the source of where or how Mrs Yang made this commitment

Third, despite donations received over the years, Yang has failed to use the money to improve the conditions of her shelters. Dogs are dying massively out of neglect, food and water deprivation. Her shelters hire no regular workers and she seldom, if not never, have vets to provide medical care of her dogs. Might this possibly be because of the condition of the dogs she takes under her wing and a constant lack of funds? The charges of neglect, lack of food and water, however, are serious but are only ‘charges’ that have not been substantiated.

Fourth, Yang has claimed that her shelters are “heavens” for dogs. The public asks if the utterly filthy and chaotic shelters are in any way close to a “heaven” for the dogs. They worry that Yang’s shelters can even cause additional harm to the dogs.  Mrs Yang allowed a TV team to follow her for 4 days in June 2015. They entered the squalid premises and graphically described the appalling conditions that she shares with some of her rescues; no attempt we can observe to persuade the public that she provides ‘heavenly accommodation’ for her rescues.

Are the concerns and questionings listed above groundless? As a recipient of donation from the Chinese domestic and international donors, Yang has the responsibility to provide an answer. Here we encourage Ms. Yang to open her shelters and allow representatives from the media, a third party, and representatives of the critics to conduct an onsite investigation. We repeat, the media have entered at least two of her ‘shelters’ in June 2015. One they reported housed 1000 dogs, the other the derelict tenement premises.  Ms Sophie Ling posted many photos of one of Mrs Yang’s shelters she visited this year. The UK charity trustees, with a group of critics of Mrs Yang, had no problem entering the derelict premises in August this year.

On the question of the number of dogs in Yang’s shelters
Indeed, the critics have pointed out that Yang herself has in various media interviews provided different numbers of her shelter dogs. For example, on June 25, 2014, Yang claimed during an interview with China Daily that she had 1000 dogs and 200 cats in her shelter. In three interviews in 2015, Yang first said that she had 3000 dogs and then 3500 dogs. In a TV program of Tianjin TV aired on September 8, she produced a higher number, i.e., 4000 dogs, allegedly under her care. It is completely legitimate for shelter owners to use the dog numbers for fund-raising purposes. But, the numbers must be accurate. The bigger the number of the dogs a shelter has, the bigger the responsibility for the shelter owners. Similarly, the bigger the dog number, the greater the need for staff and resources. ‘..the greater the need for staff and resources’ is exactly the reason Mrs Yang should have her fund released by the UK charity.

Whether Yang has inflated her dog numbers will be found out when the media, the third party representatives and members of the critics pay a visit to Yang’s shelter and count on the spot.  Mrs Yang’s critics have said on social media that she has 4 ‘yards’, two have been identified, two are ‘said’ by her detractors to be secret. If the TV crew reported one yard holding 1000 dogs and that 3 out of four yards are run by volunteers perhaps the quoted numbers of dogs may not be that inaccurate?

On the expenses of animal care and shelter management
Financial management of shelters has room for improvement. Yet, donation expenditure can be checked by looking at the purchasing receipts. It is important that Yang release information on her donation income, expenditures on the major items and receipts, for the audit by a third party. Will her detractors respond to the same scrutiny?

Reporting to the donors on how donation has been used is the responsibility of rescue groups and individuals who receive donation from the society. We agree wholeheartedly, and there is currently a petition requesting exactly that of the UK charity holding her funds.

Other issues related to shelter management
Yang also has the responsibility to release to the public information about the number of staffs hired in her shelter, cost of water and food, expenditures on vaccination, sterilization, vet services (if veterinary services have been provided), mortality rate, and dead animal disposal methods. Again, will all of her detractors respond to the same scrutiny?

We therefore urge Ms. Yang to take our suggestions seriously and open her shelter immediately so that the various parties can start verifying the dog number in her shelter, release financial reports and the conditions of the dogs and cats. Only in this way can the current questioning be addressed.

We would like to take this opportunity to inform our supporters and the society at large. The majority of the Chinese animal protection community honors the ethical principles guiding the operation of non-profit organizations. They are positive, transparent, trustworthy, and conscious of the need to improve care for the animals. Is this statement suggesting that Mrs Yang is stealing donations to live a luxurious lifestyle?

Animal protectionists are operating in a challenging terrain to fight for animals in China. There are many obstacles such as the lack of an animal protection law, availability of a large number of animal abuse practices, and inadequate financial support from the society. While we look for more donations and support, we must not over-estimate our abilities. We shall do what we can within our ability. Once we receive public support in the form of donations, we must accept supervision of the society and be accountable. “.. While we look for more donations and support, we must not over-estimate our abilities. We shall do what we can within our ability.” ….yet activists are intercepting DMT traders’ transports holding such numbers of dogs that they themselves can’t cope, hence the latest NTDM appeal describing the dreadful condition those rescues are in. “The holding camps are rife with infection and distemper is a frequent  deadly plague.

Animal protection is a new public interest area and animal protection movement is yet to mature. Financial and shelter management calls for improvement. A small number of shelters have a lot to improve in animal care. Fraudulent fund-raising by a very small number of people is likely out there. Yet, we have seen the rise of a large number of shelters that are standardizing operations, maximizing better animal care. Again, is this observation intended to suggest that Mrs Yang is stealing donors’ money to the detriment of her animals and to line her own pockets? 

The mainstream of China’s animal protection community rejects practices that harms animals. The “rescue” of animals is only one step of animal protection. There are a lot more to be done besides “rescue”. Providing animals with the right and good shelter, food and water, conducting vaccination, sterilization, vet care, public education and rehoming are all important part of animal protection. With that we are in complete agreement, however, this cannot be achieved without the goodwill of the public; that goodwill is currently being destroyed by the confusing antics of a very small UK animal charity.

Taking animals out of danger is not enough. Animal protection activists must have self-discipline, law-abiding, objective, realistic of own abilities, responsive to the society and the donors on questions regarding donation use and animal conditions.

It is important that animal protection activists know what a good crisis management constitutes. When one faces challenges and questioning, the best way to take is to conduct proactively candid, open and well-intentioned dialogue. Denial, making up of an excuse, abusing and demonizing the critics is poor crisis management that creates a greater controversy, damages own reputation further, and harms the animals. We sincerely hope that the UK charity holding Mrs Yang’s fund will read this paragraph. The behavior of the WPDCMT aka ‘No To Dog Meat’ management has been one of a campaign of disinformation and extreme hostility to questioning since the charity was formed in May 2013.

Those who fund-raise publicly are “public” figures with social responsibilities as well. We suggest that Yang take immediate actions to address the suspicions and charges. We are here to provide whatever assistance necessary.

Cosigning here are the heads of the organizations that join the statement. We welcome inquiries and suggestions from you all.
September 9, 2015


It has come to our attention that there is a Facebook page called STOP Dog Charity Fraud recently opened.

Previously unseen videos and pictures have been posted on this FB page. The video footage and some of the photos were taken when the NTDM CEO and her fellow trustee, accompanied by a group of people apparently hostile to Mrs Yang, visited Mrs Yang in August this year. Other photos cannot be verified as being taken at any of Mrs Yang’s facilities. The page was created at or about the same time as the statement was released, seemingly by an alias account, and purposefully to discredit Mrs Yang. Sadly it was noted that a well respected consultant of HSI appeared to endorse the inflammatory criticism of Mrs Yang. While respecting his right to his opinion of Mrs Yang it is a strange platform for him to choose to express it.

One of the videos is shown below:


We live in an imperfect world and as one commentator wrote, “The unpalatable truth is that we do not find a ‘Saviour’ or a ‘Hero’ in Mrs Yang. We find a desperate woman stretched beyond her abilities and finances – one woman who has been thrust into the limelight and is now forced under the magnifying lens.

A woman whose journey of personal salvation has seen her take in far too many dogs and cats than she can realistically cope with, but who tragically cannot stop herself from continuing to take in more.

A lone figure, distrustful of interference and outsiders; an educated woman, emotionally compromised by the loss of her beloved husband, with strong religious and moral conviction. Mrs Yang no longer has youth on her side and imminent catastrophe now weighs heavily on her tired shoulders.

We leave you with two images; one at the Rose Bowl Stadium, LA. Sunday 13th Sept. 2015. Left to right: NTDM trustee Robert Donkers, Fia Perera, NTDM CEO Julia de Cadenet, Lori Alan, Brett Allen, Debbie Duncan Dunn, and Brigit Pimm. All but Debbie, Lori and Fia flew out to LA from the UK for another NTDM fundraiser. The other image of the tiny figure in pink needs no description.

As a supporter of Mrs Yang remarked today…..

While egos and waistbands inflate with Western arrogance, vainglory and greed ~ dogs die and a woman is trodden underfoot

Julia Donkers Mrs Yang contrast

An online petition: The ‘Yes And Now Group’ are Petitioning William Shawcross, Chairman of the Charity Commission and 7 others: INVESTIGATE the UK registered charity #1154524 known as ‘No To Dog Meat’ (NTDM aka WPDCMT)


Mrs Yang speaks with Sophie Ling in China – July 2015

In July of this year, former ‘No To Dog Meat’ volunteer Sophie Ling visited Mrs Yang in China for the second time. During these visits Sophie worked hard to gain Mrs Yang’s trust. Not an easy task when dealing with a lady who has spent years facing corrupt officials, intimidating dog meat traders, and broken promises.

At the time of Sophie’s visit Mrs Yang was finally ready to talk candidly and share more information about the animals she has rescued. She agreed to being interviewed by Sophie, an audio recording of which is posted below.

During the interview, several points are clearly stated:

  • Mrs Yang was aware, and in agreement to, her own “website” page which Sophie would update with news from China. The “website” referred to was the “Mrs Yang Official” facebook page.
  • Mrs Yang stated that the most important thing at that time was relocating to a new shelter. She requested that the money raised by the NTDM fundraiser be used to secure a new shelter that would house all the animals in her care.
  • Mrs Yang stated that she did not, at this time, have sufficient food for all of the dogs in her care and this was an immediate concern.
  • Mrs Yang was in agreement of setting up a management group of trusted people who could support her in taking forward a program of change to improve the lives of the animals in her care.
  • Mrs Yang stated that she wanted Sophie Ling to be her representative when dealing with NTDM.

It was very clear from information coming out of China before the fundraiser was started that Mrs Yang was in a dire situation. Her animals were suffering from insufficient food, ineffective management, limited medical treatment, overcrowding and unsuitable housing.

Fast forward two months…….

Have Mrs Yang’s dogs been rehoused in more suitable accommodation where their living conditions are improved?

Have the dogs been provided with the medical supplies and food that were so desperately needed?

Have the dreams of a vulnerable elderly woman struggling to cope been realised?

We don’t think we need to tell you that the answer to these questions is a loud and resounding NO! NTDM were in the perfect position to make a real difference to the lives of both Mrs Yang and the animals in her care, and what have they done? Dashed her hopes and dreams and left animals to suffer in squalor. Because of the inaction of NTDM Mrs Yang’s dogs are still hungry, still overcrowded, still suffering. The charity MUST be held accountable for their lack of support for Mrs Yang over the last two months and the suffering of so many animals. They have sat on the pot of gold, and continue to sit on it while the dogs continue to suffer. During Sophie’s interview Mrs Yang said that she was afraid of NTDM, afraid that they wouldn’t give her the money. It looks like her worst fears may well be realised.

Please listen to the audio yourself and read the statement from Sophie Ling as posted on what was “Mrs Yang Official” Facebook page.

Mrs Yang Interview July 19 2015

Video recorded 19 July 2015. It is with real sadness that this page original objectives have been lost. Mrs Yang agreed/asked me to set-up her Facebook page during my second meeting with her on July 18/19. I have several videos and recordings that testify to this but these will not be shared, as I do not want to upset her further. I am publishing this this voice recoding only as Mrs Yang gave a clear picture of the situation and her needs. I returned from China in July excited that this would be a new start; Mrs Yang was prepared to start talking and share more information. We agreed I would share the information I had gathered and she would start to provide me regular content. This I believed would help highlight her challenges and invite people and organisations to provide her with long-term help.

Out of respect to Mrs Yang, I have now changed the name of this page to ‘Mrs Yang, visit 2015’. I appreciate many of you will no longer wish to follow this page but I want to keep the situation documented, as I believe it contains an important set of lessons in relation to the cat and dog meat trade in China. I have restrained from speaking for myself on this page, as I wanted to protect the legitimacy of Mrs Yang’s voice. This post does not represent Mrs Yangs views; just my own.

I have met Mrs Yang twice; both times have been filled with respect and affection. We parted each visit with and exchange of gifts and hugs. I know Mrs Yang did not always tell me the whole truth; why would she trust a stranger after years of broken promises? I do not agree with attacking someone in crisis; they should be firstly made to feel safe by offering unconditional help; then and only then can one start to create ‘rules’. This page showed the conditions; insufficient food, ineffective management, limited medical treatment, no animal grooming, unfit-for-purpose series of rented farm pens and sheds… Her request was clear, help her stabilise the locations and then a program of change can begin. Getting the animals out of the pound/scattered and temporary locations would have been the building block for the future. Mrs Yang is a woman without a professional team of support and a track record of rejecting external involvement. The page was solely intended to share facts and slowly build her trust in order to coax Mrs Yang into a sense of security where she would be willing to collaborate.

I do believe she has been told to say she did not give permission for this page. What has happened to Mrs Yang over the last two weeks is nothing short of wicked. We discovered nothing new, an elderly lady who is overwhelmed by her ‘compulsion’ to rescue dogs/cats from the meat traders.

My visit and this page was (is) a genuine attempt to help highlight the issues and encourage change for both Mrs Yang and the animals. Mrs Yang is a very controversial character in China; she has many practices that are not helpful to the cause (e.g. reputation of buying dogs from traders; refusal for external intervention…). Mrs Yang understands the power of her voice and her silence; but she is still an elderly woman. The animals remain at the mercy of these politics. Yes, she is wrong to not collaborate with the global charities whom I am assured have offered help over several years, she is wrong to not cooperate with the ‘policy’ to not buy dogs (this undermines the efforts of the entire roadside rescue groups who rely on negotiation using the basic legal framework of ‘thief’ and ‘danger to public health’ in the absence of animal rights). She is also clearly mistaken to keep accepting dogs when she is unable to provide the right environment. But isn’t that reason enough to help?!

It was very hard to not judge or criticise what I saw when I visited Mrs Yang in July. I asked myself “Would I of done any better after 22 years in the same circumstances?” It was too easy for me to disapprove and then fly home. I committed to doing all I could to help those animals laying in puddles, with eye/skin infections, mange, limited food, extreme heat/cold, never having received any affection/fun in their dear lives. I believed telling the story would enable the help to come…

When I first met Mrs Yang, in June, I was volunteering for a UK registered charity. Their contact asked me to meet her on one of my trips to China (privately funded/self-organised). As soon as I did (3 week before Yulin), all I could think of offering was a fundraiser. This page was never intended to be about that project only! But it has now become the focal point. I guess that part of the story is a good example of how things can go wrong. I’ve learnt many lessons, do not give your time to a charity unless you have fully established their credentials; do not run into a situation without asking yourself why had the global/Asian organisation not stepped in before? Build relationships and do not accept face value.

Knowing Yulin was fast approaching I ran to try and beat the clock; simply focused on ‘save as many dogs as possible’. After one hour with Mrs Yang I guilelessly dived-in; I reacted from my heart and set about promoting the fundraiser on any/all social media channels I could manage. I never imagined so much attention would come her way and the donations increased beyond all expectations. Within days of the fundraiser surpassing it’s target 5-fold I resigned from the UK Charity. I still thought I could stay involved to help tell her story and expedite the information needed for the charity e.g. what money she had received and how it was being spent; agree how the remainder should be spent. I offered to play the role of facilitator, feeling a morale obligation to help ensure they donations were received and spent wisely. That was rejected and controversy has prevailed. I am ashamed of my foolishness and saddened I could not make it work.

I, along with others have been subjected to weeks of abuse and threats; it has been disgusting, intimidating and downright enraging. Tying to tackle the malicious rumours about this page has become a waste of time. This page was supposed to focus on Mrs Yang; it invited anyone to updated/share information and thanked the other group that provided a donation.

I would like to thank all the people that have been bold enough to challenge the abusers and protect the truth. Equally I am privileged to still have trust with some Chinese animal activists, who have kept me informed. To the page commentators, I am so sorry you have endured continuous mistreatment. I am sorry for your frustration with me not speaking up and sharing the insider view; I hoped time would resolve matters. I hope this post will demonstrate my gratitude and provide you with resolution to your questions. I will continue to work with the relevant authorities to address the crimes. No doubt by simply speaking the abuse will once again escalate. Please if you experience this, keep the evidence and contact the police. I cannot/will not use this page to air my personal complaints again.

I have just less than two years experience in relation to the dog/cat meat trade. During that time I have visited China almost every 8/9 weeks. I have visited shelters, networked across the north-south western Chinese dog/cat meat activist route. I have taken part in 1 cat rescue and 1 attempted rescue. Yep I am a naïve, over optimistic fool, but I still believe in the power of the individual to contribute; we must not feel disempowered by the descending, cruel and conflicting voices.

We need now to accept that the Mrs Yang challenge requires a combined effort from the global animal welfare community; that is how I will support Mrs Yang. I urge you to work with the Global and Asian animal charities who have the skills, infrastructure and integrity to make a real difference.

I absolutely understand why Mrs Yang has now said she did not give permission to this page. Regardless the focus for the future must remain safeguarding the animals and giving Mrs Yang a dignified role/retirement and recognise her role for highlighting the evil cat and dog meat trade to the world. My hope for her is that she will be able to step-back and coach a new generation to take-up her mantel. Lets keep the dream alive of a professional shelter, where the animals are homed, fed, treated, taught to play combined with an societal change towards dogs and cats as sentient beings, our dearest companions. I’m still hope to be able to adopt both within and outside of China.

I am sorry you have had to witness such conflict. The other admin has now backed out, as have many people who do not want to be abused/are unhappy with Mrs Yang. So, simply treat this now as my page, stay, go…but please do not forget the animals are still lying in filth, vulnerable to being stolen by the traders/sold by corrupt pound guards and a woman that is angry/defiant due to fear. I pray she will be offered and accept help.

This page only represent my personal experience with Mrs Yang and not the wider Mrs Yang projects; so is no longer her official Facebook page.


An online petition Ensure MRS YANG receives ALL DONATIONS given for her and INVESTIGATE the UK registered charity # 1154524 ‘WORLD PROTECTION FOR DOGS AND CATS IN THE MEAT TRADE’ (WPDCMT) AKA ‘No To Dog Meat’ (NTDM) is currently running at 4,800 signatures.