It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

No, Wells Fargo, You Can't Leave Animals To Die

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   

No, Wells Fargo, You Can't Leave Animals To Die


consumerist.com

Wells Fargo foreclosed on a Rhode Island shelter for abandoned animals, barred former owner Dan MacKenzie from entering the property, and seems to be just letting the animals fend for themselves, the Providence Journal reports.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.projo.com




posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Links for the original source are also in the article.


This is just SICK. These are all abandoned animals being abandoned again.Though I'm sure this guy went bankrupt for one reason or another, not letting him take care of the animals until they find a home for them is truly animal cruelty.


your banks hard at work =

consumerist.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   
That is truly EVIL.... would they behave the same if it were an orphanage I wonder??
I'm sure the animal lovers in the community are busy trying to find other places to help shelter them though....hopefully in time!!



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Well I'm pretty sure Wells Fargo will come up with an explaination about how they're doing 'God's work' for the 'Benefit of Society'



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   
In the original article it says that the property is a farm and not a shelter. And Wells Fargo was looking for ways to deal with the animals through a contractor days before he was foreclosed on.

WFC could have handle the situation better but they are running a business and various laws would have given the owner of the farm plenty of time to find alternative funding methods, sale of his livestock, or movement to another facility; he chose to do nothing at all and ignore all the foreclosure notices and he was actually surprised when he was actually foreclosed on.

I also find it funny how the consumerist.com article misrepresents the facility as a shelter and has a picture of a dog behind a cage when there is probably no dogs on the farm.

[edit on 9-12-2009 by mister_doodi]



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Its just a bad situation wells fargo is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't.

If it didn't foreclose on the shelter/farm because of the animals then it will send the message that all anyone has to do to avoid foreclosure is stock their property with defenseless animals.

Im sure they took some measure to find refuge for the animals, I mean remember there are lots of normal people working at this bank many of whom im sure have pets of their own, it is not some ruthless cabal looking to ruin peoples lives, that's reserved for a minority of traders.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Desolate Cancer

If it didn't foreclose on the shelter/farm because of the animals then it will send the message that all anyone has to do to avoid foreclosure is stock their property with defenseless animals.



Defenseless animals...

Even if these were tigers instead of livestock - this would still be cruelty.





[edit on 9-12-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by mister_doodi
 


they're a giant corp full of money. I'm sure these guys have connections, too.

They could have saved a lot of face by just taking care of the animals. They could have hired just 1 guy to come in and feed them, that's all it takes.

the details are kind of irrelevant because ether way you spin, Wells Fargo is in the wrong



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join