BVA e-petition

Re: BVA e-petition

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 29 Jan 2015 18:35:31 GMT

The petition has reached 100,000 signatures Yipee!

Wynne

Re: BVA e-petition

Gareth C. — Mon, 19 Jan 2015 17:31:25 GMT

done thanks for putting it up there

Re: BVA e-petition

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 19 Jan 2015 16:55:35 GMT

Agree with Francisco - and I don't smoke!

Wynne

Re: BVA e-petition

Francisco Gomez — Mon, 19 Jan 2015 16:46:51 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]

there are no EU or national requirements to label. It is now time to introduce that requirement at a national level.

[/quote]

I found this statement arguable, is this not why one of the reasons http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/index_en.htm was created? I'm sure it would be dead easy to implement in the current regulations. It just need someone with will.

Maybe I'm just barking at the wrong tree..

[quote user="J G Wray"]

What happens if our ever so balanced meeja or these religious groups makes the claim, just makes the claim and creates perception that the numbers of petitioners here was inflated by hate groups looking to damage religious groups?

BVA would become toxic overnight.

[/quote]

Your point is 'Do not campaign' because you might be associated with hate groups? Then we won't be able to campaign about anything whatsoever, there will be always someone who disagree. Is everyone voting UKIP pro-lung cancer?

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

A bit like a paella; lots of ingredients and the flavour was sort of fishy , strong, but undefinable..

[/quote]

Should I take offence there?

Re: BVA e-petition

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 19 Jan 2015 16:38:40 GMT

PS to above. Arlo,seriously I'm with you in opposing Jonathon's claims,but I couldn't helpbeing mischievious.

Wynne

Re: BVA e-petition

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 19 Jan 2015 16:34:42 GMT

Arlo Snowdon isn't volcanic, but the tornado was real.

Wynne

Re: BVA e-petition

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 19 Jan 2015 16:33:08 GMT

If animalwelfare is improved, then I'm all in favour of not only a complete ban on non-stun slaughter (easier to police than labelling) but also on the importation of animal products from countries with lower welfare standards than ours. This would not only improve welfare, but also disease security. Remember that the 2001 FMD epidemic was caused by beef from Botswana, and in the 1st 2/3rds of the 20th century, the appallingly high number of outbreaks of FMD were nearly all caused by Argentinian meat. How any government could have been so insane as toallow the importation of Argentinian meat, despite the countroe's FMD endemic status (at that time) absolutely beats me.

Wynne

Re: BVA e-petition

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 19 Jan 2015 16:05:03 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]And Snowdon is not volcanic.[/quote]

That was precisely my point.

Re: BVA e-petition

Bob Russell — Mon, 19 Jan 2015 15:51:06 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

I think local Haverfordwest resident Darren Barnes captured the moment eloquently:

"It was the scariest thing ever. We lost 30 tiles and next door lost a shed roof."

[/quote]

That could be serious. Ever seen a queen or duchess slate sailing through the air before sticking itself upright in the tarmac? It could take someone's head off, easily.

And Snowdon is not volcanic.

Sorry!

[/quote]

No wonder Arlo is so worried then. A non-volcano erupting sounds like something to worry about to me!

Hopefully the 'resident' OV's would do a better job of ensuring proper labelling of meat than they were able to with horsemeat!

Still think labelling is a more suitable means of reducing non-stun meat being consumed by the general public. Perhaps more strict licensing and increased welfare monitoring of abattoirs involved in religious slaughter that does not allow stunning.

More realistic than a ban which is likely to draw imports from places where welfare standards are even worse!

Re: BVA e-petition

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Mon, 19 Jan 2015 15:41:22 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

I think local Haverfordwest resident Darren Barnes captured the moment eloquently:

"It was the scariest thing ever. We lost 30 tiles and next door lost a shed roof."

[/quote]

That could be serious. Ever seen a queen or duchess slate sailing through the air before sticking itself upright in the tarmac? It could take someone's head off, easily.

And Snowdon is not volcanic.

Sorry!

Re: BVA e-petition

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 19 Jan 2015 15:18:45 GMT

I think if it was my roof, or my shed, I'd feel it was significant. It would certainly be enough to justify an insurence claim.

Wynne

Re: BVA e-petition

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 19 Jan 2015 14:30:15 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"] Arlo Atornado DID cause significant damage in south west Wales - Haverfordwest[/quote]

Wynne, significant damage? I guess it's all relative, but we're not exactly talking about a Kansas F1.

I think local Haverfordwest resident Darren Barnes captured the moment eloquently:

"It was the scariest thing ever. We lost 30 tiles and next door lost a shed roof."

(http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/wales-weather-huge-hailstones-thundersnow-8442120)

Re: BVA e-petition

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 19 Jan 2015 14:23:51 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"][quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]How on earth could anyone substantiate the accusation that a significant number of signatories did it only for reasons of racial prejudice? [/quote]

Wouldn't need to.[/quote]

Yes they would! (We could go round in circles, but my view is that nobody would accept that as fact without some supporting evidence, because it just isn't a strong enough story without)[quote user="J G Wray"]

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"] It could hardly be blamed if the survey was taken over by 'haters'.[/quote]

Wouldn't be the point. The point would be the poor judgement that put them in that position.[/quote]

Only if the majority felt that it did indeed display poor judgement.

My suspicion (and that is all it is) is that for every member that feels the BVA has no place campaigning, there is another who actually wants an organisation to stand up and represent their viewpoint.

Personally, I think it is entirely right that the BVA should campaign on issues which veterinary input is relevant and valuable (in which I include whether animals should be stunned prior to slaughter).

[quote user="J G Wray"]As an ex-PR person how would you manage the situation if it arose? What resources would you deploy to limit damage?[/quote]

Couldn't possibly say unless and until the situation arose, except in the broadest possible terms: truthfully and with clarity. The amount of resources deployed would depend entirely on the likely amount of damage.

Re: BVA e-petition

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 19 Jan 2015 13:38:46 GMT

Arlo Atornado DID cause significant damage in south west Wales - Haverfordwest.

Wynne

Re: BVA e-petition

J G Wray — Mon, 19 Jan 2015 13:28:35 GMT

Here's three examples, all from the Daily Mail, how truth isn't gonna get in the way of a story

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article-2782991/Doctor-wins-damages-bus-driver-libel-case.html
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/node/49534
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6687109.stm

Re: BVA e-petition

J G Wray — Mon, 19 Jan 2015 13:24:04 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]How on earth could anyone substantiate the accusation that a significant number of signatories did it only for reasons of racial prejudice? [/quote]

Wouldn't need to.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"] It could hardly be blamed if the survey was taken over by 'haters'.[/quote]

Wouldn't be the point. The point would be the poor judgement that put them in that position.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]That's an interesting point - is it the BVA's place to crusade?[/quote]

They've got Antibiotic "Guardians" a quasi-vigilante term and are now creating alliances with non-scientific organisations which have agendas with High Moral Tone e.g. RSPCA, one of this list's favourite organisations. That's the point of dilution of the lobbying based on science and the beginning of the Crusade. I'd quite like to know if we're gonna get more of this sort of thing and what their plan B is if it goes badly.

As an ex-PR person how would you manage the situation if it arose? What resources would you deploy to limit damage?

Re: BVA e-petition

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 19 Jan 2015 12:52:16 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]I've been pondering how an accusation that the e petition numbers include some race hate voters would pan out, what the land of unforeseen consequences would look like for BVA. The accusation needn't be true. All it would need would be to create a perception and the damage would be done. BVA would look, at best, like having made a poor judgement. The least important damage would be to BVA's reputation, authority and prestige. It would be the change in relationships that would be the manifestation of the besmirching. Government and Government Agencies would distance themselves. Commercial partners for Members services and LVS would drift away, especially where they have parent companies with sensitivities over these issues, with attendant loss of income. BVA Divisions would have to go back and see whether it would be appropriate to use BVA as the "voice of the profession" in the face of perceived poor management and the members of BVA would have to think about being associated with organisation that got drawn into such a mess. Members would have to think about whether guilt by Association (pun intended) was acceptable.[/quote]

Meanwhile in other news, Mount Snowdon erupted - throwing the whole of the UK into a nuclear winter, the London stock market fell 75%, an undersea earthquake triggered a tsunami that flattened Hartlepool, and tornadoes tore through the south west.

JGW, nobody could ever accuse you of not considering the worst case scenario

But realistically:

1. How on earth could anyone substantiate the accusation that a significant number of signatories did it only for reasons of racial prejudice?

2. Even if they could, it is blatantly obvious that BVA et al have organised the survey for the right reasons. It could hardly be blamed if the survey was taken over by 'haters'.

[quote user="J G Wray"]BVA may yet rue the day they took a scientific exercise[/quote]

I don't believe it will or should.

[quote user="J G Wray"]to create a moral Crusade[/quote]

That's an interesting point - is it the BVA's place to crusade?

Re: BVA e-petition

J G Wray — Sun, 18 Jan 2015 14:07:48 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]The BVA represents the views of its members and is in a strong position to argue the case. [/quote]

This isn't in doubt. But....I've been pondering how an accusation that the e petition numbers include some race hate voters would pan out, what the land of unforeseen consequences would look like for BVA. The accusation needn't be true. All it would need would be to create a perception and the damage would be done. BVA would look, at best, like having made a poor judgement. The least important damage would be to BVA's reputation, authority and prestige. It would be the change in relationships that would be the manifestation of the besmirching. Government and Government Agencies would distance themselves. Commercial partners for Members services and LVS would drift away, especially where they have parent companies with sensitivities over these issues, with attendant loss of income. BVA Divisions would have to go back and see whether it would be appropriate to use BVA as the "voice of the profession" in the face of perceived poor management and the members of BVA would have to think about being associated with organisation that got drawn into such a mess. Members would have to think about whether guilt by Association (pun intended) was acceptable.

BVA would have no chance to put a genie back in the bottle, particularly if any e petitioners were shown to be haters. Council would have to decide whether to expend resources, time, people, members' money on defending their position. BVA business would come to a halt. BVA would become all consumed by the issue. BVA would become a shadow of its former self.

In a time of heightened tensions where religious/cultural groups are under threat, perceived and real, the BVA looks vulnerable to me by lead and association. Unfortunately, there is a clear precedent for the hijacking of animal welfare legislation in respect of Kosher slaughter by hate groups for their own ends. We can take lessons from history or we can ignore them.

BVA may yet rue the day they took a scientific exercise and joined with non-scientists to create a moral Crusade. What a great shame.

Re: BVA e-petition

Gillian Mostyn — Sun, 18 Jan 2015 13:26:09 GMT

I understand what JGW means and he is right.. There is the possibility that this debate could be hijacked by racists and BVA be drawn into it.

I don't, however, think that the threat of this should be reason enough not to get involved. If animal welfare is being put second to religious beliefs, this has to be tackled. The BVA represents the views of its members and is in a strong position to argue the case.

Re: BVA e-petition

Anthony Todd — Sun, 18 Jan 2015 09:23:44 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]Sure, but you know it won't happen.[/quote]

I know, I know but , I'd love to ask.

The great unwashed unthinkers think "stunned" or "stunning" is something to do with a mental "sunset" or "twilight" and close to paradise.

"The view from the balcony, as the sun set over the bay, was stunning....."

I'll bet nobody has ever asked.

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]If you read it carefully[/quote]

Sure again, but to get a message or point across it has to be stupid simple, and even then, on this forum, when it is I don't.

Re: BVA e-petition

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sun, 18 Jan 2015 00:34:25 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]Only if the label is prominent and worded so that even the Great British Public understand it.[/quote]

Are we sure everyone knows what "stunned" means?

Why not label the meat

Killed while Awake

[/quote]

Sure, but you know it won't happen.

And what's to prevent the meat being falsely labelled? If they can get away with substituting horse for beef, chicken for pork, whatever, frauds that can quite easily be detected, they surely will falsify the stunning label.

[quote user="Phil Hyde"]Well done Jon, I couldn't follow a word of that.[/quote]

If you read it carefully – I admit, reading carefully is something commonly not done on this forum – it makes perfect sense and a good point.

Re: BVA e-petition

Anthony Todd — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 20:11:33 GMT

[quote user="Phil Hyde"]Well done Jon, I couldn't follow a word of that.[/quote]

+1.

A bit like a paella; lots of ingredients and the flavour was sort of fishy , strong, but undefinable..

.[quote user="Phil Hyde"]Ban it and ban it now.[/quote]

Yes. All vets should stop animal cruelty now, and in all its degrees.

Re: BVA e-petition

Anthony Todd — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 20:03:42 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]Only if the label is prominent and worded so that even the Great British Public understand it.[/quote]

Are we sure everyone knows what "stunned" means?

Why not label the meat

Killed while Awake

Re: BVA e-petition

Phil Hyde — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 19:37:48 GMT

Well done Jon, I couldn't follow a word of that. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that this country should be secular. Full stop. Secular in government and (amongst many other things) secular in food production. Who would have thought that such a sentence was possible? Secular in food production means that we deal with food animals on welfare grounds, economy, practicality and, well, that's it. Nothing about religion should be allowed to impose on this. Ban it and ban it now.

Re: BVA e-petition

J G Wray — Sat, 17 Jan 2015 08:20:42 GMT

Can anyone tell me how we know that the 95,000 people who have signed this e petition do so for the reasons expressed? I refer, in particular, to the phrase:

".. Our concern does not relate to religious belief but to the animal welfare compromise of non-stun slaughter..."

Let me explain for those who see The World in monochrome. If you have a set of beliefs which holds prejudice against something, someone, people or even Nation states, then there is the possibility that those beliefs can be articulated, at a basic level for example of casual racism on a street through cyber opinion to representative prejudice and on to physically harmful behaviour. Once you hold that those prejudices need to be articulated, does anyone know of a situation where "fairness" causes the prejudiced to stand back from using for instance cyber opinion where it sees the opportunity to damage those they hate and their cultural or religious tenets?

Now, irrespective of the statement:

"... Our concern does not relate to religious belief but to the animal welfare compromise of non-stun slaughter...."

BVA would become toxic overnight.

There is a point where science and evidence and proof falls into the hands of people who see a moral dimension and create a Crusade. That is the point of damnation because, for reasons I've never understood, there is a loss of objectivity, of cost vs benefit and path to Hell, paved with Good Intent is followed.

The sentiment behind this e petition is fine, but the possibilities for unforeseen consequences for BVA and by extension, the profession are enormous and it won't do any good crying foul afterwards.

Cassandra