Like I said before, private “agencies” like Eville and Jones, which import vets on the cheap with no experience, need to go. That was my second employer, and my wife’s first, all the hate we and others feel for it, is well deserved. - You do, however, create and expose a problem, we don’t have people here for the job, and we offer shit pay. That needs to change too.
Unfortunately, the government is not in a much better position, at all.
And while we are talking about policies - what happens when you cut the public sector even more, but create more bastards like Eville and Jones?
On the other side, being pigheaded can be a policy too… - you can just ban things, and then be forced to deal with the fallout.
Which brings us to enforcement, not only do you need people with a lot of power for it, you need arms and attachments to the police, and then the police needs more powers and we need to mandate that everyone has to comply at least with being identified, let alone breach, search and detain… and I am not talking about the knowledge of the legislation here at all… we have animal health officers for that, but very few and very underpaid.
I actually enforce welfare, and have to deal with abattoirs, remove halal and 70% loose their chief source of income, yes, it’s that bad.
Small abattoirs + attached butchers, with local kids trained for it for local communities seem to be what everyone talks about.
The problem always is, money, in the end.
The large supermarket chains will nuke that immediately.
Good one Pete, we do need to talk about all of this, and no one thought it would be simple anyway…
Yes, as always there is much to be thought about when proposing banning things.
Apparently, according to a Jewish friend, Jews are not that bothered about Kosher. It's a bit of a niche thing with many jews happy to eat whatever is available if they can't get it.
I'm told that there are a few unlicensed slaughter houses around Bradford...and no doubt elsewhere.
Pete, here you go again pointing out all the nonsense outraged politics everyone is addicted to. When the left was doing this, "save the world, welfare and humanitarian action" outrage politics to guilt trip people into voting or make it a virtual sign vote on the right side of history, I asked myself do I blame the seller of bullshit or do I blame the buyers of bullshit? If we ain't buying it no more, maybe, just maybe, the sellers of bullshit will stop selling it.
Now that the right are, not just buying the bullshit, they are demanding it, craving it! Do I blame Rupert Lowe for selling it?
I thought they wanted normal common sense politics, honest and productive politics, but I was wrong. The right just wants the outrage, virtual signalling, feel good but does no good politics of their own, just like the left do.
Agreed there is a much bigger problem with the meat industry as a whole and with enforcing British law in minority communities but non-stun slaughter is banned in some countries already including where I live, it is not some mindless new idea minted in the UK. It can be done.
The waffel around this issue is overwhelming. You either support the humane killing of animals or not. If the end result is that the humane way is decided, then those who need halal can eat imported meats from some where else that still does the throught cutting method. If that means there has to be extra inspections of imports, pass this cost onto that product. Dont debate it with these communities, this is the way it is in this country.
“The question is whether we are genuinely concerned with animal welfare or are just proposing a ban as a stick with which to beat Muslims. As a matter of public policy you can compel councils to default to stunned meat in schools and hospitals, and insist that halal/kosher is conducted in specially built licenced slaughterhouses but an outright ban is both vindictive and counterproductive.”
Setting aside the detail that the correct participle is “licensed”, would you make the same argument in the context of a hypothetical (currently, anyway …) demand for - say - a legal exemption permitting Islamists to throw homosexuals from the top of buildings? If something is considered so undesirable that society should go to the lengths of banning it then the ban should be applied without fear or favour. Vice versa, if it is acceptable for some people to mistreat animals, it is acceptable for all of us to do so.
That is a much better example than my own because we know that FGM goes on illegally in certain UK communities whereas killing people for being gay is probably rare.
A national that has prided itself on championing animal welfare has binned all those good intentions on the altar (pardon the holy pun) of Islam. We need to get back to first principles and start doing the right thing for our animals and our people and not the right thing for Muslim bloc votes.
1. Reduce benefits to new immigrants. This is the easiest way to achieve mass deportation.
2. Control postal votes to only those with genuine disabilities or over an age threshold of say 80.
So what? Much illegal activity happens "underground" because it is necessarily hidden from the authorities. But at least you have a starting point to stop the practice.
Some people won't risk a criminal record, so will stop. And it would make it almost impossible for supermarkets - at least the so-called "reputable" ones - to sustain their demand for the product. So, even before the first prosecution, the activity would reduce. What is not to like?
Yes, I thought I understood your position. However I have never bought the argument that you cannot ban something because you might drive it underground. All illegal activity is, in that sense, "underground" and the argument often becomes a recipe for inaction.
In any case, there is nothing more invidious or discrediting to the notion of law and justice than giving particular groups waivers or opt-outs from compliance with the law on cultural, religious or similar grounds, rather than applying the law without fear or favour. It cannot simultaneously be true that causing animals suffering is so unacceptably wicked that it must be banned but is acceptable when performed by Muslims. So it should be illegal either for everyone or for no-one.
Anyway, as I pointed out, even without a single prosecution or official compliance action, simply making it illegal will significantly reduce the activity.
Both my sisters eat organic none religiously slaughtered meat products which cost an arm and a leg 🤭
I choose pork products - it’s a lot cheaper.
We aren’t activists.
It’s about trying to be as humane as possible to animals.
Importing religiously slaughtered meat is a good idea. Nearly all lamb/sheep imports are religiously slaughtered, it wouldn’t take much to import and label all meat for religious sale.
Like I said before, private “agencies” like Eville and Jones, which import vets on the cheap with no experience, need to go. That was my second employer, and my wife’s first, all the hate we and others feel for it, is well deserved. - You do, however, create and expose a problem, we don’t have people here for the job, and we offer shit pay. That needs to change too.
Unfortunately, the government is not in a much better position, at all.
And while we are talking about policies - what happens when you cut the public sector even more, but create more bastards like Eville and Jones?
On the other side, being pigheaded can be a policy too… - you can just ban things, and then be forced to deal with the fallout.
Which brings us to enforcement, not only do you need people with a lot of power for it, you need arms and attachments to the police, and then the police needs more powers and we need to mandate that everyone has to comply at least with being identified, let alone breach, search and detain… and I am not talking about the knowledge of the legislation here at all… we have animal health officers for that, but very few and very underpaid.
I actually enforce welfare, and have to deal with abattoirs, remove halal and 70% loose their chief source of income, yes, it’s that bad.
Small abattoirs + attached butchers, with local kids trained for it for local communities seem to be what everyone talks about.
The problem always is, money, in the end.
The large supermarket chains will nuke that immediately.
Good one Pete, we do need to talk about all of this, and no one thought it would be simple anyway…
M
Yes, as always there is much to be thought about when proposing banning things.
Apparently, according to a Jewish friend, Jews are not that bothered about Kosher. It's a bit of a niche thing with many jews happy to eat whatever is available if they can't get it.
I'm told that there are a few unlicensed slaughter houses around Bradford...and no doubt elsewhere.
Pete, here you go again pointing out all the nonsense outraged politics everyone is addicted to. When the left was doing this, "save the world, welfare and humanitarian action" outrage politics to guilt trip people into voting or make it a virtual sign vote on the right side of history, I asked myself do I blame the seller of bullshit or do I blame the buyers of bullshit? If we ain't buying it no more, maybe, just maybe, the sellers of bullshit will stop selling it.
Now that the right are, not just buying the bullshit, they are demanding it, craving it! Do I blame Rupert Lowe for selling it?
I thought they wanted normal common sense politics, honest and productive politics, but I was wrong. The right just wants the outrage, virtual signalling, feel good but does no good politics of their own, just like the left do.
Agreed there is a much bigger problem with the meat industry as a whole and with enforcing British law in minority communities but non-stun slaughter is banned in some countries already including where I live, it is not some mindless new idea minted in the UK. It can be done.
After nine pints whatever they have eaten will end up down the big white telephone!!
As to your article once again a master class in objective writing - I recommend you take the rest of the day off to relax your brain!!
The waffel around this issue is overwhelming. You either support the humane killing of animals or not. If the end result is that the humane way is decided, then those who need halal can eat imported meats from some where else that still does the throught cutting method. If that means there has to be extra inspections of imports, pass this cost onto that product. Dont debate it with these communities, this is the way it is in this country.
Both my sisters buy their meat from a particular farm that sells none religious slaughter organic meat.
One of my nieces takes it too.
I concentrate on eating pork products only as the cost of non religiously slaughtered animals is over double the cost of religiously slaughtered.
I wish I could follow my partners vegetarian regime but I don’t have the discipline.
I agree with you. The relaxed rules on animal slaughter have to be tightened.
Importing religiously slaughtered animals would be the best way of dealing with the problem from a number of angles.
When animal welfare is ignored by the RSPCA I wonder why?
Thank you for your reply George.
“The question is whether we are genuinely concerned with animal welfare or are just proposing a ban as a stick with which to beat Muslims. As a matter of public policy you can compel councils to default to stunned meat in schools and hospitals, and insist that halal/kosher is conducted in specially built licenced slaughterhouses but an outright ban is both vindictive and counterproductive.”
Setting aside the detail that the correct participle is “licensed”, would you make the same argument in the context of a hypothetical (currently, anyway …) demand for - say - a legal exemption permitting Islamists to throw homosexuals from the top of buildings? If something is considered so undesirable that society should go to the lengths of banning it then the ban should be applied without fear or favour. Vice versa, if it is acceptable for some people to mistreat animals, it is acceptable for all of us to do so.
Principles and right vs. wrong are indivisible.
Exactly. It's not vindictive or counterproductive for any law to apply to everyone equally without exception in fact it's essential.
Otherwise should we also have specially built licensed FGM clinics?
That is a much better example than my own because we know that FGM goes on illegally in certain UK communities whereas killing people for being gay is probably rare.
“a legal exemption permitting Islamists to throw homosexuals from the top of buildings?”
Hmm…
Owen Jones
Zack Polanski
Peter Mandelson
A national that has prided itself on championing animal welfare has binned all those good intentions on the altar (pardon the holy pun) of Islam. We need to get back to first principles and start doing the right thing for our animals and our people and not the right thing for Muslim bloc votes.
1. Reduce benefits to new immigrants. This is the easiest way to achieve mass deportation.
2. Control postal votes to only those with genuine disabilities or over an age threshold of say 80.
What's the problem with it being "used as a stick with which to beat Muslims"?
It won't work and will cause more problems than it solves.
What problems will it cause?
Banning halal slaughter without investment in EHOs and reopening local slaughter houses would just drive the practice underground.
So what? Much illegal activity happens "underground" because it is necessarily hidden from the authorities. But at least you have a starting point to stop the practice.
Some people won't risk a criminal record, so will stop. And it would make it almost impossible for supermarkets - at least the so-called "reputable" ones - to sustain their demand for the product. So, even before the first prosecution, the activity would reduce. What is not to like?
I trust you understand I'm AGAINST halal slaughter but believe that before its done it must be properly supported.
Yes, I thought I understood your position. However I have never bought the argument that you cannot ban something because you might drive it underground. All illegal activity is, in that sense, "underground" and the argument often becomes a recipe for inaction.
In any case, there is nothing more invidious or discrediting to the notion of law and justice than giving particular groups waivers or opt-outs from compliance with the law on cultural, religious or similar grounds, rather than applying the law without fear or favour. It cannot simultaneously be true that causing animals suffering is so unacceptably wicked that it must be banned but is acceptable when performed by Muslims. So it should be illegal either for everyone or for no-one.
Anyway, as I pointed out, even without a single prosecution or official compliance action, simply making it illegal will significantly reduce the activity.
1). I hate to say this, because it has been so abused, but picking one one aspect of a culture just to be nasty is not being … a good citizen.
2) It just gives them another piece of propaganda to use against us … “You don’t really care about the animals, your just being racist”
I agree with most of that but being called 'racist' is flung around too easily.
Exactly why we don’t need to give them any more ammunition.
However I'm against halal slaughter in principle.
So many saying it’s anti Halal or anti Kosher.
Both my sisters eat organic none religiously slaughtered meat products which cost an arm and a leg 🤭
I choose pork products - it’s a lot cheaper.
We aren’t activists.
It’s about trying to be as humane as possible to animals.
Importing religiously slaughtered meat is a good idea. Nearly all lamb/sheep imports are religiously slaughtered, it wouldn’t take much to import and label all meat for religious sale.
Will abuses occur? Yes.
Do they occur now? Yes.
Will more unofficial slaughter occur?
Yes.
Is it right? I think so.