While I will adding more evidence of Hillsides involvement and incitement of the slanderous activities in the coming days. This one comment by Hillside single-handedly admits their involvement while still perpetuating their slanderous narrative of the breeder of Asap.
Shall we break it down?
The very first line at the top, indicates any negative comments or debates on who the owner will be removed. Rachel was not addressing that, she was specifically addressing their behavior. In reference to the commenting, they were only removing comments the were being made in defense of the breeder, but leaving all others that attack her. It’s their page, they are free to do as they please, however this comment should have never happened. But responding to it, they are acknowledging Cassia Bryden’s (their trainer/animal control tech) and their own involvement. While they feel they may not have any control over Cassia’s actions and what she does on her page, Cassia admits quite freely that she works for Hillside, and captured proof of Tracey Gibson (manager of Hillside) participating in it speaks volumes of their lack of professionalism. However, with that being said, no one can expect Hillside to keep their staff professional when they clearly have no issues with their own unprofessional conduct.
Cassia made it a point to deliberately harrass the breeder by inciting her friends and fellow staff members into going after the breeder. Posting who she was, criticizing her for her looks and making judgements based on those appearances. Futhermore, she told people to go to her pages and leave her comments. It should be noted that while Cassia does indeed work for Hillside, she does certainly run her own business of a rescue, called Sato Saved.
It should be noted that Cassia’s original posts have now been made private, it took a long time for her to figure out they were public and being captured/documented.
While Hillside and Cassia may not have liked what was being said on the breeder’s social media pages such as Instagram or Facebook, the fact of the matter remains…nothing was said that couldn’t be proven often admitted by their own words or actions. Documented and captured. She did ask people to share her story, but she did not provide a direct link to either Hillside’s, Sato Saved’s or Cassia’s pages or website and tell people to leave comments.
The bigger point to this is, what business does this? What business that is contracted for several municipalities behaves in this manner and feels it is appropriate. They are a public representation of the municipalities, and they serve the communities. Are the municipalities ok with this behavior?
They could argue that the breeder and her “mother” were leaving comments on their pages. However if they go back and review those that they captured, they are going to be sorely disappointed in discovering what was said was countering the lies and misinformation they were perpetuating about the breeder, with nothing slanderous being said about them.
We never said she couldn’t provide her ‘proof’ of ownership – Well Rachel actually didn’t ask her anything about providing proof of ownership. Are they perhaps a little sensitive about this subject?
Is it because they went out of their way to proactively not allow the breeder to set up an time to come provide those documents in person and pay the bill at the same time? We are in a pandemic, appointments are important.
Is it because they are aware that the breeder knows they lied to the OPP constable, providing a wrong email address? That Hillside told both constables on two separate occasions that they were not dismissing the ability for the breeder to get Asap back she just needed to provide that proof of ownership?
The call with the OPP constable was recorded btw. The breeder learned very quickly in the first couple of hours to record, capture and document everything.
However, that aside, why in the world would anyone email their legal documentation to Hillside, legal documents with sensitive information that Hillside could attach to Asap, when they kept telling the breeder she was not getting the dog back. No reputable and sane breeder would do this.
This has come up several times, that the breeder hasn’t called only through her mother. How ridiculously shameful of Hillside to put across something like this. It’s irrelevant to everything.
Yes, calls were placed from the mother’s phones since that is the more reliable of the phones because of difference in providers. But more importantly, while both the breeder and her mother were on the call, why does the breeder’s mother speaking mean anything. What if there was some sort of disability present, what if there was issue with speech. Is this how you would treat someone with a disability should you ever accidently pick up a service or support dog? It is just another example of the ignorance displayed on Hillsides behalf. Lastly, how can Hillside claim that she didn’t call, but she told Hillside on a phone call she “gave” Asap away? Which one was it Hillside?
Hillside told the breeder on the Friday evening that she could see him the next Wednesday, and obtain him as an adoptable. The same phone call it was agreed that the breeder would be responsible for all vetting, pound and neutering fees.
The only thing that you should have said in this entire comment was, “she can go through her lawyers.”
But hey, it’s not my job to teach you public relations.