Stan Rawlinson, self-styled DogListener and self-appointed chair of PAACT Professional Association of Applied Canine Trainers is obsessively attempting to damage the brand and good name of K9 Magazine and Ryan O’Meara.

This is because K9 Magazine publicly alerted people to the conduct of the man and highlighted his aggressive, offensive behaviour as well as his fame-hungry habits which resulted in K9 Magazine mistakenly giving him a platform.

Stan Rawlinson is dishonest.

He has mislead people as to his identity on discussion forums – more than one.

Stan Rawlinson is abusive and offensive.

He instigates personal abuse against people who disagree with him. He makes false accusations against people. He has attempted to mislead people as to his true association with a number of respected media organisations (including Disney and The BBC who have both had to issue clarification statements in order to ensure people are not mistaken in to believing Rawlinson’s claims about his relationship with them).

He is a bully.

And most interestingly, on his own website – on the website of: PAACT Professional Association of Applied Canine Trainers it carries the following under ‘Code of Conduct’

PAACT members should conduct themselves honestly, professionally and compassionately and perform these services within the guidelines of this code.

Let us remind ourselves that Stan Rawlinson – so-called DogListener – is the chair of this organisation (how he got to be the chair one only needs to investigate further to find out).

It offers a code of conduct which is explicit in how members are supposed to behave. Professionally?

Here is the DogListener in action:

“You are that mouth woman in the North of England whose hormones crashed.” (Rawlinson displaying true professionalism when someone dared to disagree with his view)

“The real fact is I have reached more people this year than you and the whole forum and all your staff. Because whether you like it or not, that’s the facts You just don’t cut the ice sonny.” (Boastful Rawlinson on his media exploits)

“Arn’t you the little old lady who was sooooooo confused the other day.”

“Well done (NAME EDITED), see your into animal welfare! That must be like Herod in charge of baby sitting. Sorry some of the posters on here do not have the animals welfare at heart. Yoy MAY not be one of them.” (This comment directed at a professional employed at a large national animal welfare charity. A person who’s reputation is completely unblemished but who happened to disagree with the mighty DogListener)

In further exchanges – all with people who have the temerity to disagree with him and share views different to his, his ‘professionalism’ sees him:

Accuse an ex Police officer of being an alcoholic/drug abuser

Make suggestions about a person’s sexual orientation and habits

Makes a derogatory claim about about Americans, in particular their ability to detect irony, which he then – ironically – goes on to say:

“Just listen to this rant and do you really think this man is a Journalist? I am Lou, I actually get paid for it. Sickener Eh.”

Stan Rawlinson, journalist?

Bear in mind, Stan Rawlinson has posed under different names in order to write about himself and to pursue personal vendettas.

Bear in mind Stan Rawlinson has out and lied, in public.

And now ask yourself, why would Stan Rawlinson be obsessively posting about Ryan O’Meara and K9 Magazine?

Is it, perhaps, because Ryan O’Meara and K9 Magazine exposed him and his abusive, bullying ways for the public to see?

The man who hides his identity, publicly makes comments about people’s sexual orientation, lies, misrepresents his relationship with well respected media organisations and who has a Twitter page which (at time of writing) has just 4 posts in total, of which 3 (yes, that’s 3) are written about K9 Media/K9 Magazine/Ryan O’Meara. Stan Rawlinson is an obsessive man who is unhappy that his conduct has been held up to public scrutiny.

K9 Magazine has a duty to inform our readers and dog lovers in general as to the professional conduct of organisations and individuals in the pet world.

Stan Rawlinson’s professional conduct is something that people should make a judgement on for themselves. They should also ask whether or not the self-appointed chairman of PAACT Professional Association of Applied Canine Trainers has followed his own organisations code of conduct.

He has lied, publicly. His lies are easy for people to find, they are published on his website.

He has misrepresented himself and deliberately hidden his identity in order to talk about himself.

Take a little look at this:

Stan Rawlinson/DogListener:

I am also an expert witness in Court Cases involving the Dangerous Dogs Act. If you are not sufficiently qualified or experienced you would be annihilated.

I only ever act in cases for the defence never the prosecution. If you type Dog aggression into Google you will see that I come first out of over two million entries. Therefore I am probably seen as someone who may know something about it. SOURCE

Firstly, expert witnesses in court cases are independent. Rawlinson’s suggesting that he as a witness ‘acting’ for one side over the other is exceptionally questionable. But even that isn’t the really interesting part here, note how he writes Court Cases (capitalising the C’s – remember, this is the man who proudly boasts that he is a paid journalist!)

quite an unusual, or shall we say, revealing way to write court cases, capitalising the C’s. But wait, what’s this? In response to a question posed on Yahoo Answers as to whether anyone had any experience of Stan Rawlinson, after a few responses (where nobody had any experience of him but one person did feel it right to point out her reservations) look who pops up with a late response.

This is from ‘Anne’ (remember, Stan Rawlinson has a proven track record of posting on forums and the like posing as a women and pretending not to be who he is)

Hi

I haven’t used him personally but a friend did and they said he was brilliant.

I think he is quite well known. I did have a look at his website and do not understand why someone has said they have concerns. He appears very knowledgeable and states he is used as a behavioural expert by many organisations. The friend who used him said he is also an expert witness in Court Cases involving dogs

You have not said what is wrong with the dog.

SOURCE

Notice anything unusual?

What was it that gave it away?

The capitalising of Court Cases or the fact that ‘Anne’ calls Stan Rawlinson ‘brilliant’ and ‘quite well known’. If ever you wanted to get Stan Rawlinson’s opinion of himself he’s a ‘brilliant’ and ‘quite well known’ ‘expert’. So, who could Anne be? You can make your own mind up, I’m sure!

Why publish this at all?

It’s simple really. Stan Rawlinson has attacked K9 Magazine and has made it a personal vendetta of his to try and obsessively run the good name of K9 Magazine in to the ground. He has published lies on his website. Absolute, bare-faced lies that he can not support. He has, frequently, revealed his knowledge of dogs and canine welfare to be deeply lacking. But, most of all, as K9 Magazine gave him a platform and later realised what a monumental error that was, it is right that K9 Media and K9 Magazine ensure that Stan Rawlinson’s claims and false accuations are countered and that people are given a full picture as to the ‘DogListener’s’ penchant for abusive behaviour toward people who question him, his reputation for misleading people by claiming things about himself that are simply not acurate and most of all to ensure that if people do wish to believe Stan Rawlinson’s motivation for attacking K9 Magazine is anything other than a personal vendetta, they at least make that decision in the full posession of the information that the chairman of PAACT is a liar and a misleading self-publicist.