Animal abuse.

Re: Animal abuse.

Anthony Todd — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 17:44:58 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]I dunno[/quote]

Hey Arlo, all sorts of people are praising me for the petition, Big Brother is only the start! Knighthoods have been mentioned [but I haven't got enough dosh] etc. etc.

Seriously, it is the VETSURGEON.ORG petition and hence force should be known as such, loads of us got it to it's final form.

Re: Animal abuse.

Bob Russell — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 16:34:08 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

I just can't help wondering, idly, in my cynical way, why vegetarians and vegans are signing this petition.

[/quote]

Possibly one of the stupidest things I've ever seen written.

[/quote]

These animals will still die whether the poster is vegetarian, vegan or 'fruitarian'! The welfare issues are therefore real and signatures still valid even if they are not contributing to the slaughter!

Re: Animal abuse.

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 20:50:01 GMT

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"][quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

I just can't help wondering, idly, in my cynical way, why vegetarians and vegans are signing this petition.

[/quote]

Because not everyone is vegetarian for the same reasons. One of my relatives has familial high cholesterol; one friend of mine is hindu. (he just finds vegetarian food simpler. Not sure of the specific religious details. ) I can imagine that even people who don't eat meat would prefer to see them humanely slaughtered. Plus, people that abuse animals might abuse people. You can have an opinion even if you don't use the end product…

[/quote]

Yes, good points. I also know people who are vegetarian on the grounds of the economics of food production or who are intent on saving the planet. The best ever reason I heard was from a close friend: "I just don't like meat".

I was just struck, mildly, (can one be struck mildly?) by the observation that of those who chose to add a comment announcing their vegetarianism, many were of the strange (to me, to me) "meat is murder" persuasion or at least of the "all abattoirs are always cruel" persuasion. One would not have thought that the practical improving measure of CCTV would particularly interest them, as what they really want is to see all abattoirs closed for ever.

I did wonder if they were not so much interested in achieving CCTV installation as in gaining any publicity for their own militant vegetarianism. Indeed, the original Animal Aid video was presented that way.

No, I'm too cynical.

Re: Animal abuse.

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 20:32:43 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]

[quote]

I made that admittedly fairly inconsequential comment.

[/quote]

1. Why make it then?

[/quote]

Because, duckie, It is my pleasure sometimes to throw out odd, slightly whimsical even, thoughts and observations that may stimulate replies from others who are not averse to an occasional civilised conversation upon a mild philosophical point.

If interesting and polite conversation is not your bag, as it were, nobody is obliging you to take part. Indeed, if you feel some comment is footling or even stupid, you could set an example and ignore it, for there is nothing so crushing to one who writes as the deadly silence of a complete lack of response.

However, if one of your hobbies is personal abuse combined with intemperate condemnation of any point of view that does not coincide with your own, not through politely-presented logical reasoning but through blind assertion in colourfully offensive terms, feel free to indulge in it for a while. Possibly, however, you would do better to find another forum.

[quote user="David Mills"]2. The idea that only meat eaters can judge whether animal cruelty is taking place is at best, bizarre, at worst, incredibly ignorant, and always, apart from being wrong, an incredibly stupid, dense, ill-thought thing to even contemplate.[/quote]

Perfectly true. Was anyone suggesting that?

[quote user="David Mills"]If Mr Barbour-Hill, for once, decided to descend from his rarefied perch of dogmatic self-delusion of righteous that becomes dinosaurs that have been in practice longer than, on average, 10 years, and wondered at all about vegetarianism, most people would say that it is the abject welfare of production techbiques - i.e. modern farming - far more than slaughter that is why they are veggie.[/quote]

What do you know about how much I have wondered about vegetarianism? As someone else has pointed out, there are many reasons for being vegetarian.

[quote user="David Mills"]Clear enough? Cue admission of stupidity from a rational poster. Cue not, I expect, from yourself.[/quote]

Oh, an old old argumentative ploy.

Re: Animal abuse.

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 20:12:01 GMT

Are you this rude in real life, or is it just your online persona?

I dunno, just strikes me that there are politer, more respectful ways of pointing out what you see as stupidity in others.

Re: Animal abuse.

David Mills — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 17:54:28 GMT

[quote]

I made that admittedly fairly inconsequential comment.

[/quote]

1. Why make it then?

2. The idea that only meat eaters can judge whether animal cruelty is taking place is at best, bizarre, at worst, incredibly ignorant, and always, apart from being wrong, an incredibly stupid, dense, ill-thought thing to even contemplate.

If Mr Barbour-Hill, for once, decided to descend from his rarefied perch of dogmatic self-delusion of righteous that becomes dinosaurs that have been in practice longer than, on average, 10 years, and wondered at all about vegetarianism, most people would say that it is the abject welfare of production techbiques - i.e. modern farming - far more than slaughter that is why they are veggie.

Clear enough? Cue admission of stupidity from a rational poster. Cue not, I expect, from yourself.

Ed's note: Yellow card, for obvious reasons.

Re: Animal abuse.

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 15:43:47 GMT

To be fair to Mrs Nute, she is probably gagged at the moment as I believe she is on PIC, so if she expresses an adverse opinion, and the lack of supervision by the OVS results in a Royal College complaint, she has tobe SEEN not to have judged before hearing both sides of the story-not that there is another side in this case, and I would definitely discipline the OVS but I can state my opinion as I'm not on Council

Wynne

Re: Animal abuse.

J G Wray — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 15:31:08 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Also, I'm going to look into the possibility of our own, more controlled petition system - i.e. one that works from the registered VetSurgeon / VetNurse database. Meantime, I am manually checking that comments are from registered members![/quote]

One of your registered members is Mrs Jill Nute. When she's not a RCVS Councillor she runs OVS services. Has she given us her expert point of view on the abbatoir cited and CCTV idea in general? RCVS claim to be an independent source of unbiased scientific and animal welfare information. They are also our regulator and somewhere in this abbatoir there's a OVS, so Mrs Nute, as the longest serving RCVS Councillor must have something to contribute here.

Perhaps, in the interests of balance and as a source of informed comment Mr Guthrie could ask Mrs Nute to join in this thread.

JGW

Re: Animal abuse.

Tim Cheyne — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 10:00:19 GMT

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"]

..... one friend of mine is hindu. (he just finds vegetarian food simpler. Not sure of the specific religious details)

[/quote]

Hinduism is a complex mixture; amongst my friends some are vegetarian, some vegan, some (most) do not eat the meat of the cow which has a particular religious significance, others (probably lapsed) eat anything put before them!

Tim.

Re: Animal abuse.

Mark Hedberg — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 07:59:54 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

I just can't help wondering, idly, in my cynical way, why vegetarians and vegans are signing this petition.

[/quote]

Re: Animal abuse.

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 03:04:08 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[quote user="David Mills"]Possibly one of the stupidest things I've ever seen written.[/quote]

Now, now

[/quote]

Not at all. Perhaps Mr. Mills would care to expand upon his thesis. Perhaps he would care to engage brain and speculate upon why I made that admittedly fairly inconsequential comment.

Or was it simply that he saw a quick opportunity to indulge his taste for gratuitous offence?

Re: Animal abuse.

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 18:04:01 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]Possibly one of the stupidest things I've ever seen written.[/quote]

Now, now

Re: Animal abuse.

David Mills — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 17:26:31 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

I just can't help wondering, idly, in my cynical way, why vegetarians and vegans are signing this petition.

[/quote]

Possibly one of the stupidest things I've ever seen written.

Re: Animal abuse.

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:54:56 GMT

I just can't help wondering, idly, in my cynical way, why vegetarians and vegans are signing this petition.

Re: Animal abuse.

Bob Russell — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 13:17:07 GMT

Most of the comments seem to be reasonably measured so a few 'nutty' comments should not detract from the petition.

Re: Animal abuse.

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 09:40:48 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]We are getting some pretty silly rants there - number 979 for instance. They rather detract from the value of the petition, to my mind.[/quote]

I tend to agree.

The comments box is not optional, but even if it was, I'd be in two minds. I mean, there are some well-considered comments in there, along with the occasional rant. Perhaps a lesson for the future would be to add a rant instruction on the petition itself.

Also, I'm going to look into the possibility of our own, more controlled petition system - i.e. one that works from the registered VetSurgeon / VetNurse database. Meantime, I am manually checking that comments are from registered members!

Still, over 1000 signatures this morning.

Re: Animal abuse.

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 01:42:28 GMT

Did it have to have the optional "comments" box? We are getting some pretty silly rants there - number 964 (edited) for instance. They rather detract from the value of the petition, to my mind.

Re: Animal abuse.

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 16:51:53 GMT

Quick update: Just emailed members of vetnurse.co.uk, and we're at 600 signatures and climbing ...

Re: Animal abuse.

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 10:01:51 GMT

Sorry, belatedly, but the update I promised:

Kate at Animal Aid told me the following:

Despite initial reluctance to do so, the FSA IS now compiling a case on Cheale Meats. This is perhaps due to the pressure it came under from a variety of different places, including Animal Aid and the BVA. The FSA had apparently argued that there was no point in putting the case, as It relied on illegally gathered evidence, and would be thrown out by Defra. However, Animal Aid pointed out that it is not the FSA's place to make that call, and it is legally obliged to compile the case, regardless.
Meantime, the Attorney General has moved prosecutory powers from Defra to the CPS. This, I am told, is a good thing, both because it is better that Defra is not both representing and prosecuting the industry, and because you would expect the CPS to prosecute more robustly.
From 1st January 2013, EU member countries will harmonise welfare laws. Welfare laws that were in place before that time can remain in place, but it will be more difficult to introduce new laws. Animal Aid says that the objective is to get CCTV introduced before 1st January 2013.
The main barrier to that would appear to be Defra's willingness to hold a public consultation / debate / vote in the House of Commons. owever, it certainly seems achievable.
Animal Aid tells me the leading supermarkets already insist on CCTV used by their supplier abattoirs, but they probably weren't the problem in the first place. It's the 20% of abattoirs that don't supply the supermarkets that need monitoring.

In summary, this really seems to be one of those petitions that it is worth getting behind. As Kate said, your voice as a vet really does have more clout than most.

Re: Animal abuse.

Anthony Todd — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 08:51:15 GMT

Firm support for the BVA in the current edition of Private Eye no 1295, pg40, and cutting criticism of the "unlawful evidence" defence.

Re: Animal abuse.

Thomas Johnson — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 10:10:26 GMT

It's not overly clear, but it is a suggested donation, you can just close the page.

Re: Animal abuse.

bob lehner — Sat, 20 Aug 2011 09:54:14 GMT

[quote user="Caroline Smith"]

Hi there, I signed the petition. I found however that after filling in my name/email address the next page asks for a donation in dollars with no option to opt out. I'm guessing this is to do with the petition software and am guessing that without signing in to paypal they can't take any money, but I was a little unnerved by this. Is it possible to change the settings on the petition to either avoid this page or to confirm that there is no obligatory donation required?

[/quote]

Yes - the same thing happened to me yesterday - they wanted $25 ! I exited straight away. Have checked my paypal a/c and nothing has gone (yet).

Re: Animal abuse.

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 22:17:22 GMT

[quote user="Caroline Smith"]

[/quote]

Huh? I think either you have the wrong petition or some toerag scammer has infiltrated your computer.

Re: Animal abuse.

Caroline Smith — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 21:19:49 GMT

Re: Animal abuse.

Anthony Todd — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 16:14:07 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"] I'd rather be tied to the exhaust pipe of a car by my balls, and dragged naked around a field of broken glass.[/quote]

Then you'd defo be on it.

And the video would be a best seller.....

And CCTV for that would be a shoe-in.