There has been a lot of commentary around the Chained Dogs of Blind Bight that I have written about recently, first here, then again here.

Tonight I wanted to clear up a couple of misconceptions.

The keeper of these dogs is Troy Scoble. His former lover who placed the dogs in his care after a backlash against her rescue group “Off The Chain Rescue – Bull Breeds” when a dog in their care was shot and killed is Simone Dines.

Let’s be clear about this Simone and Troy are not the victims.

The victims are the neighbours Troy terrorised with his shotgun until police ended the siege.

The victims are the people who have donated money to Simone Dines to care for these dogs.

And of course the real victims are the dogs themselves.

Dines trains a dog to attack Image- Facebook

Dines training methods
Image- Facebook

There are some who are attempting to portray Simone and Troy as some kind of hapless victims who are in need of assistance.

This is complete and utter crap. As for those who are touting this rubbish, some who should know better, they are either completely daft or morally repugnant.

For those who think that they are “Playing along with Simones games” in order to achieve a desired outcome, the simple fact is you are not a player you are just being played.

Donating money or dog food to this pair of ethically void abusers is not helping with the dogs care, it is rewarding them for their behaviour, it is making a business for Dines even more profitable and it is giving the pair something to laugh about at night.

Consider this, these dogs are not suffering in the bush because Troy had nowhere else to put them. Troy lives on a large property and had plenty of room near the home to provide shelter for the dogs, but you know what? He chose not to.

Instead he chose to chain them up about 400 metres from his house, running water, and human interaction. He did this knowing that the provision of fresh water was going to be a major ordeal, he did this knowing that these dogs would not have any human company, he did this knowing the dogs would never be off the chains, and he did this knowing the dogs would suffer.

This is not a victim, this is someone who has no compassion or morality.

Troy Scobles - as close as these dogs get to human contact Image - Supplied

Troy Scobles – as close as these dogs get to human contact
Image – Supplied

As for Simone Dines who enjoys her Dogs Victoria and Dogs NSW membership, a victim is not someone who takes money off strangers for the care of dogs her former lover has chained up in the bush. A victim is not someone who even after exposure continues to try to manipulate the situation for their own gain.

There are two sides to every story, and this is no different. In this case the sides are from those who are trying to ensure this pair cannot continue to mistreat animals, and those who are using the dogs they continue to have chained up as a tool to manipulate the gullible into vouching for them.

So let’s be straight.

If you care, sign the petition and shut this pair down.

Victims my arse…

34 thoughts on “I Wanna Be Straight – Simone Dines & Troy Scobles are not victims

  1. This is just getting more soul breaking every day.. while all this shit is going on those poor dear souls are out in this shocking weather, I swear to God, if I was back in Melbourne I’d be loading them up !

  2. Until animal abuse and neglect is taken seriously we will never be a proud countty. The governments are not concerned about this

    ok it is great they have taken on her dogs which is wonderful news and great work to the rescue – but to stroke her ego publically in this post is RIDICULOUS – i know they had to stroke her ego in getting to negotiate with her which is ok and is what rescues have to do to get a positive result – but to put up this ridiculous post about the violins and poor simone???SHE KNEW WHERE THESE DOGS WERE _ SHE KNEW THEIR STATE – IN FACT SHE RETURNED ONE THERE IN APRIL AFTER SOMEONE APPARENTLY STOLE HER – to be returned to that hell hole – she is in contact with Troy – he is a regular visitor to her trashy excuse of a home – which home the dogs above who have now been surrendered lived – hopefully they can be rehabilitated to not be the aggressive guard dogs she has trained them to be – so really no danger of them being stolen unless you want to get your arm ripped off – look at the training techniques she encourages on her dog training FB page – yes these dogs are in physically good condition but I can’t even imagine the behavioural issues and how broken they are in spirit . I Also love the way Simone the Sociopath gets off on replying to that above post using her FB alias – a very very dangerous evil manipulative and cunning human

  4. I have written to the RSPCA Vic and the local council and I am not happy with the response that I have had. They seem to be bound by some law that they cant take anymore action , or they say that they are still investigating. These grubs need to be arrested and jailed for animal neglect , nothing more.

  5. Apsolutely appalling these two..heartless and gutless people. They are both quilty, Simone in fact takes the lead because if it wasn’t for her the dogs would be in loving homes by now. She is keeping those dogs there for her own selfish needs and Troy too…for money and bredding? Shame on them shame shame. I am so infuriated that these people are still getting away with this whilist these dogs continue to suffer. The RSPCA needs to re asses their laws and practice what they preach on their website. I understand the laws need to change but these dogs should have been taken away in their first visit and not give him time to comply. They are monsters money hungry monsters who do not give a damn what happen to these dogs!!! Oxygen stealing crooks!!!!! I hope they get whats coming to them i just pray these dogs get rescued…i am so lost for words and at the moment anger is taking over so i better stop here…they have dragged their name through the mud themselves and to every doddgy person consequences follow the only thing im sorry for is that this is taking too long ???

  6. The RSPCA are bound by laws, and in this case the local council had greater powers under POCTA than the RSPCA. As council had already taken Troy to court over this the council is powerless now I suppose.

    This case has seen police who were initially keen to go hard after the gun siege rapidly lose interest after being bombarded with calls from people who were making false reports of gunshots due to reading crap on Facebook pages etc The police are not keen on having their resources and time wasted over and over again by people who don’t know what they are talking about, or candidates for political parties trying to piggyback off this for their own gain, and using the case to fuel anger at the RSPCA with misinformation and lies to suit their political parties agenda of stripping the RSPCA of its powers.

    Unfortunately for the dogs the actions of many of those claiming to be acting for the dogs welfare have ensured the dogs will continue to be neglected at the hands of Troy.

    To be honest I wish I’d never written about it, while it got the attention of those it needed to it also brought with it elements that wasted police, RSPCA and councils time and likely only served for Troys weak sentence.

    This is not directed at you or those who were only trying to help, it is aimed at those who used this suffering to suit their own personal agenda, and they know who they are.

  7. Agree Peter, there are ridiculous Facebook pages proclaiming to “free the blind bight dogs” that are simply lying to the public about this case. We have wasted so much time trying to correct the misinformation out there. They are using this case to further their own malicious agenda and it sickens me that they could use the suffering of dogs in this way, they are as bad as the owners of these dogs

  8. Peter,
    This is exactly what I was concerned about when this story broke. I’m in no way saying I support how these poor dogs are being kept, but there’s no way he will sign over these poor dogs to anyone now!
    It’s always best to keep it quiet until the animals are SAFE and the case has been heard. “Trial by media” is a very real issue & all it does is ensure that the accused gets off lightly & let’s face it, when p*ssed off to this extent, destroys any chance of saving the animals.

  9. Unfortunately this was a case where the media needed to say something to put pressure on authorities to act, as they were not acting despite reports.

    The media didn’t poison the case, idiots and self-serving wannabe politicians did with false claims and grandstanding.

    This case was underway months before the media became involved, and long before I wrote about it.

    The reason I wrote about it after the media got hold of it was to put the facts out there rather than the media selective bits.

  10. ‘Undercover’, please explain how Facebook pages are lying about the case, and what sick mind would say they are as bad as Dines & Scoble? These two are solely responsible for this entire mess, let’s not forget – Dines placed the dogs on the property & left them with an obviously violent & unstable Scoble. Now she cries innocent? No, it’s the dogs who are the innocence victims here & no FB page is responsible for the situation these poor dogs are in. Take responsibility Dines & those on her bandwagon – you’re just as bad as her

  11. I can tell you that Facebook pages had been stating that gunshots were being heard coming from the property, utterly false reports, and encouraging people to call local police with these false reports. This has wasted police time and has tainted the police view of genuine animal advocates involved in this case.

    I can also tell you that facebook pages have published the address of the Troy’s property, many have also attempted that here on my page, and have thus given Troy evidence to portray himself as the victim to police, citing published threats and the publication of his address.

  12. Peter,
    You seem to forget that he had 60 day correction order! That could have been the perfect opportunity to work WITH him to get these animals to safety. That old saying. You get more honey with sugar.

  13. He received that after action was taken via media exposure, after which he was not going to work with anyone

  14. Peter,
    I honestly believe that there were a lot of questionable & possibly bordering on illegal acts in gaining information in this case from the get go. Trespassing to get to the dogs to start with, (which is why there is now a “restraining order” in place.)

    I would also question who gave out details regarding the microchip numbers. Somebody gave out personal information to these people when legally, they had no right to. A major breach of confidentiality.

    These people knew of the dogs blight for 10 months. They knew the dogs bowls were dry in the middle of summer! They had contact details for the rescue involved, so why did they not contact her directly back then? Why wait until these articles were published? I believe that if they were genuinely concerned about the dogs welfare, they would have been more concerned in getting these dogs to safety through appropriate channels & direct contact than creating unnecessary drama for innocent people and animals! It has been handled poorly from the get go!

  15. I know without a shadow of doubt that the authorities were contacted immediately by Oscars Law.
    Dogs were scanned and details were passed on to RSPCA with the complaint, this is perfectly legal.
    Oscars Law were tipped off in February about the dogs, investigated immediately, made an official complaint immediately, and in order to not interfere with investigations by authorities did not go public until May after RSPCA raided the property.
    As for the restraining order that has not been made public, that shows you are clearly a friend of Troy or Simones.
    Simone was contacted by Debra Teanter of Oscars Law and there is a lengthy trail of text messages that verify this.
    Don’t try and play the caring card now, nobody claimed the dogs had no water, only dirty water.
    The only people who knew of these dogs for 10 months were Simone, Troy and perhaps you by the sound of it.
    If those who investigated this disgraceful treatment of dogs didn’t care, they would not have investigated it.

  16. So who planted cameras? That alone was trespass.
    Oscars law stated they had watched for months trying to gain evidence!

    If what you say is true then how did Oscar’s Law manage to get her number?

    Where in any of the evidence of Simone chaining these dogs up? Where is the proof that they are still I contact?

    I am in no way in contact with any of the parties involved. I just like to know the facts and with all the BS being spread around this case, well, it’s creating more harm…

  17. So how do you know about the restraining order if nobody told you? Are you psychic?

    Oscars Law placed the camera’s they have never denied that, and yes that does involve going onto the property obviously.

    Simones number was publicly available on one of her Facebook pages.

    They did watch for months, you do understand that between February when it was reported, and May when the raid occurred, there are other months?

    Nobody said Simone chained the dogs, her off and on again lover Troy did.

    There is a lot of bullshit involved, and I think you are sprouting a lot of it with your stupid denials when you foolisly gave away your relationship to the abusers in your last comment

  18. So let me get this straight…
    Your words… I REGRET writing the article!” Are you revoking that comment?
    The restraining order was posted quite publicly on one of the 3 Facebook pages! Not that hard to find out the info!
    Heaven forbid I’m sprouting a little from my investigations! You’re still yet to answer just how OL managed to got her number if there was no illegal activity? You seem to be quite happy to throw Simone in the thick of it seeing as how there is really no supporting evidence that states she knew the dogs were chained. Reports from her side are that there were runs near the house… Did they go up there to check? Or were they concerned about Troy’s mental stability? It’s also expected that she should just be able to go in and steal them back.. To put her life at risk…. So why can’t all these other “page members/admins/whistleblowers?”

  19. At the end of the day, none of this has saved the dogs,, nor will it, which is what this is supposed to be all about! It won’t happen while all these pages & these blogs are still up… It’s only feeding a fire and resistance…

  20. As I said Simones number was on a Facebook page, even if it wasn’t plenty of people know her.

    Where was the restraining order published? Neither Simone or Troy took one out.

    The fact that Oscars law have been quite open about trespassing to investigate and no charges were ever laid tells you what the police think of the human trash who the poor dogs find themselves in the care of.

    If Simone knew there were runs at the side of the house she had better access then anyone and should have known the conditions they were being kept in.

    Not only that Oscars Law received photos from followers that were taken long before this came out from people who recognised their dogs online. These photos were of the same dogs on chains, photos that Simone had sent to them and had referred to a being “on the farm”

    If going to Troy’s place is risking her life I’d suggest she changes her taste in lovers

  21. Michelle Brothwell has a reputation like Simones when it comes to rescue. Both of those ferals should just stay right away from animals. Simone knew all along the dogs were chained, she took part in it, covered for Troy, still is ! Neither Michelle or Simone give a shit about these dogs, it’s just all about damage control as far as they’re concerned. Too late, their names are mud, no one in rescue will go near them

  22. So Michelle is a cunt for not taking your side in this? Really? Journalism at its best right there!
    From what I’ve just seen, most of what Michelle has said is true! Pages removing posts asking genuine questions.. Well nobody can dispute that when its my name on the screen shots!!

    There are 3 sides to any story, yours, theirs & the truth!

    Again, I’ll say it.. Gutter journalism, pages spreading absolute lies & constant attacks have worked wonders in saving these dogs so far hasn’t it!

  23. I do believe this law was passed, making you calling me a C*nt illegal Peter!
    I’ll enjoy taking this further! Thank you!

    I simply researched all sides and came to my own conclusion… Just because it doesn’t match yours does not mean I don’t care! In fact it’s the complete opposite. I’d rather get the animals saved quietly than resort to unprofessional journalism that results in getting absolutely nothing..

    Under proposed section 474.17 there will be a maximum punishment of 3 years imprisonment for using a telecommunications/carriage service in a way ‘that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, menacing, harassing or offensive’. The proposed provision will replace existing section 85ZE of the Crimes Act.

    Menacing or harassing

    The explanatory memorandum notes that in relation to ‘menacing or harassing’ use of a carriage service the proposed offence is broader than existing subsection 85ZE(1) of the Crimes Act. This is because the proposed provision:

    removes the requirement that the recipient be in fact menaced or harassed and replaces it with an objective standard. The proposed offence provides that reasonable persons must regard the use of the carriage service, given all the circumstances, as menacing, harassing or offensive. This allows community standards and common sense to be imported into a decision on whether the conduct is in fact menacing, harassing or offensive.(27) (emphasis added)

    In addition, as the explanatory memorandum says, whether ‘reasonable persons’ would regard particular use of a carriage service as menacing or harassing is ‘a circumstance in which the offending conduct must occur’.(28) Under section 5.6 of the Criminal Code, this means that to be guilty of the proposed offence, a person need not intend to cause ‘reasonable persons’ to feel menaced or harassed but need only be reckless as to whether that reaction occurs, i.e. ‘aware of a substantial risk’ which it is not justifiable to take that this might occur.(29) This is similar to existing section 471.12 of the Criminal Code regarding use of a postal or similar service ‘to menace, harass or cause offence’.

    EFA ‘is strongly opposed to the removal of the requirement that another person be in fact menaced or harassed.’ It believes that the change is aimed at use of the internet to organise political protests: ‘the aim of the proposed offence is to facilitate criminal prosecution of Internet users, and especially political activists’.(30) As the Government said in August 2003:

    People using the Internet to advocate or facilitate violent protests, for example by spreading information on methods of violently disrupting international meetings and attacking police officers protecting such gatherings, including those using the Internet to harass or menace others are amongst those who could be prosecuted under the new offences.(31)

    EFA believes that the existing parts of section 85ZE of the Crimes Act relating to menacing or harassing use of telecommunications/carriage services do not need to be changed. If use of the internet actually menaces or harasses a person, such conduct can be prosecuted. In addition, EFA notes that material on the internet which ‘promotes, instructs or incites in matters of violence or crime’ can be classified ‘Refused Classification’ by the Classification Board, and that under Schedule 5 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 such material has been prohibited internet content since 1 January 2000.(32)

    Causing offence

    Under existing section 85ZE of the Crimes Act, the offence consisting of ‘offensive’ use of a telecommunications service does not apply to ‘use of a carriage service to carry Internet content’.(33) In contrast, the offence in proposed section 474.17 will apply to any use of a ‘carriage service’, including the internet.

  24. Go away Michelle, or whatever fake name you choose to go by

  25. Great, you better call Saul….

    I look forward to meeting your lawyer and showing him all of the material from your Facebook page I have as we discuss a counter-claim for all kinds of legal breaches

  26. Undercover …. Your comment the other day that the FB pages were as bad as the owners of the dogs was disgusting!!
    They are simply trying to bring the plight of the dogs to the people so they can put pressure on the govt to do something about the legislation to free the dogs!
    We know the RSPCA have been slow to act in a lot of cases and we all saw a lot of stories on those pages over the past two months that show they need that change in order to be effective
    Also the statement that the FB pages asked people to make false police reports is untrue
    I personally watched all the information that was put out on all three of the pages and that was never asked!

    I’m glad to see Michelle Brothwell finally get what she deserves!!!
    Well said Peter!!

  27. Thanks Jodie,
    In relation to the comments re the facebook page there were numerous false reports of gunshots, and police mentioned this several times during their investigation because they originally thought the false reports were originating from Oscars Law suuporters, however they understand that not to be the case now.
    I was contacted via messenger from several people urging me to contact police after they read false reports on these Facebook pages. I’m sure many were only trying to do the right thing, but its those making up these lies that were part of the problem and only ensured frustration and anger from the police directed towards the wrong parties.

    Unfortunately the RSPCA have limited resources and at the time you may remember they were involved in the largest cruelty case ever in this state related to horses involving from memory around 100 horses.

    The RSPCA are hideously understaffed and while one particular political party saw this as an opportunity to continue their campaign to strip the RSPCA of their powers, I believe it is evidence of them needing more resouces

  28. And i fully support anything to save these dogs from these cruel cruel people!!

  29. The dogs were all seized by council and police today

  30. The dogs were all seized by council and police today

  31. He is allowed to have 4 unregistered dogs unfortunately
    All of the ones kept in bushland have been seized

Leave a Reply