RSS Feed
May 13th, 2012 
FAKE NEWS for the Zionist agenda Re- RSPCA Government relations manager Claire Robinson Ian McParland, ex head of Met police status dog unit run private business making money from ‘Dangerous Dogs’.
Claire Robinson owns and runs a website for her close personal friend Ian McParland ipcdogservices the site is registered to her and promotes the services of Ian who used to run the status dog unit in the Met responsible for dealing with ‘Dangerous Dogs’.
Claire and Ian were partly responsible for writing proposals to the Government for changes to existing Dangerous Dog Legislation which do NOT repeal the breed specific part of the Act despite the RSPCA stance that they do not agree with BSL.
Claire and Ian are doing guest talks regarding dogs problems on the streets and Dangerous dogs, but who is paying Mcparland? the RSPCA
Ian makes a living from advising, assessing and giving talks on dangerous dogs so of course needs the breed specific part of the Act to stay in order to pay his wages.
Ian has been employed by the RSPCA to give talks in africa on best practice for guard dogs, Nepotism at its best.
Claire in her role as Government relations manager has access to senior politicians and in fact used to work in the Houses of Parliament before being employed by the RSPCA.
Ian, as IPC dog services is now offering his services as an expert on breed identification to Wheldon Law, a firm of solicitors who ‘specialise’ in Dangerous dog cases.
Between Ian and Tina Hay of Wheldon law they are offering to assess dogs for a fee of £660 and provide a written report. This asessment is to identify whether or not a dog is of a banned breed type and supposedly gives the owner peace of mind.
Anyone who knows about the dangerous dogs act particularly the breed specific part will know that ‘type’ is subjective and based solely on the opinion of the assessor. If a dog is deemed not of the type by one person thereis no guarantee another expert wil agree.
Wheldon law also claime that if their expert [Ian] concludes that a dog is of the type, they will liaise with the police to get the dog regsitered and therefore legal.
My issues with this are-
Ian and Claires connection with the Met and many other forces.
Ians personal connection with Claire Robinson who in her role as RSPCA relations manager should not be involved in a business outside of work and particularly one which makes money off the back of people’s misery, especially when the RSPCA stance is anti breed specific legislaton.
Ians clear stance that BSL needs not to be repealed as it pays his wages.
Wheldon law offering a service at high cost that guarantees and owner nothing and actually brings in revenue for the firm.
Wheldon Law then offering to defend cases of dangerous dogs, also at high cost for owners whose dogs are deemed type by Ian Mcparland.
This is corrupttion and nepotism at the higer levels. Clair advises the government on dog policy, while her partner runs a business around the dogs she is advising the government to keep illigal. This is definitly a conflict of interests.
Ian and Claire live together.
Wheldon law is making money from the DDA.
Claire is not anti BSL, nor is Ian. They have both been involved in writing proposals to keep BSL in place
Ian and Wheldon law, particularly Tina Hay are enticing people not only to pay them money for nothing, but also, if a dog is deemed not of type by Ian is subsequently seized and the owner prosecuted, Wheldon law get the case [and the money] and Ian gets to act as the expert for the defence [paid again!].
Posted in 
Tags: 
