• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page



Recent comments

  • Jack
    March 14, 2012 - 09:24

    Because organizations are not allowed to discriminate against people convicted of minor offences in Newfoundland and Labrador, I doubt that being convicted of abandoning an animal is a reason why she got removed from MUN's Nursing program. If being removed from MUN due to a minor conviction is true, then MUN would have been charged with violating Newfoundland and Labrador's Human Rights Laws as Criminal Record discrimination is considered illegal unless that person was convicted for sexual offences or serious harm to other people. Perhaps she got removed due to poor academic performance. Who knows?

  • John Smith
    March 14, 2012 - 08:31

    Can you imagine the unbeliveable suffering these animals went through...horrific. I hope this woman doesn't have kids...you know what they say about people who torture innocent animals.

  • Margie
    March 14, 2012 - 07:59

    Tera Nova, I cannot believe that you are actually blaming the cats' owner. This lady ACCEPTED a job with a company that cared for animals. As a human being she should have had a little compassion, however, even worse, this was HER JOB, which she got paid for. There are CONSEQUENCES to every decision, choice, and action we make. She brought this all on herself.

  • DWB
    March 14, 2012 - 07:13

    I, for one am glad to read that this woman will never be a nurse. If she can't look after a couple of cats, God help us all if she was ever responsible for looking after a Human Being.

    • Jack
      March 14, 2012 - 10:27

      I got a feeling that MUN might have committed a Human Rights Violation in kicking Carlene out of the Nursing program as Criminal Record discrimination due to non sexual assault or harm to humans is illegal in Newfoundland and Labrador. In other words, there's likely more to it.

  • carol Ann Rogers
    March 14, 2012 - 06:59

    There are laws in place and the burden of proof has been met therefore our court system was tasked with addressing that simple point. You cannot weaken a Judges decision because you do not like cats, or because you pity the accused. This is not a court of opinion. This woman is before provincial court and must adhere to the system like any one else who brreaks any other law. Barring any legal errors or oversights she must accept the Judges ruling. this is what is meant with the expression "the letter of the law" its not about personal opinion its about following the law of the land.

  • BI
    March 14, 2012 - 06:54

    She should have been sent to jail - people are saying poor woman - what about the living creatures she neglected that can't defend themselves. People need to be held accountable for their cruelty to animals, not just a slap on the wrist. What she lost she deserved to lose and more besides.

  • tera nova
    March 14, 2012 - 06:44

    If someone has a pet and leaves it in someone else's care for four months, then they shouldn't be a pet owner in the first instance... Look at the damagee this so-called pet lover / owner has caused this woman in her life... Think the cats rank higher than human life??? If you can afford to board them, you should be able to transport them!!!