• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Animal Cruelty' to sell a goldfish, but Halal's OK!

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
18,696
Reaction score
8,703
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Are you going to link every news story to Islam somehow? Is every crime by a white citizen going to be claimed to be outrageous because a muslim somewhere might be doing something you don't like?
 

paris

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 12, 2009
Messages
2,366
Reaction score
1,438
Location
Yop
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Animals that are born and live in water are all Haram with the exception of fish. All types of fishes are Halal, with the exception of that which dies naturally in the sea without any external cause. However, if a fish was to die due to some external cause such as cold, heat, being thrown to the shore by the water, colliding with a stone, etc, then it would be Halal:)
 

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,551
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Are you arguing the goldfish story and and Halal story present different arguments? Or that Muslims are Jews are getting away with something? They both are about animal rights groups/laws getting into people's personal lives, whether its selling goldfish or having food prepared in accordance with your religion.

A single data point is hardly conclusive evidence of anything, just because some pet store owner is punished for violating an animal right law doesn't mean Muslims are getting away with something. Besides I doubt you think that slaughtering an animal by slitting its throat is animal cruelty at all, and I'd bet you don't have a problem with that practice in itself but are just trying to portray them in a negative light using whatever reason you can imagine.
 

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Two short points in that quick, clean article:

1. That old woman was stung for something that's only a crime in the eyes of legislators (selling a fish to a 14-year old, and one who looked older to boot). And it's only been on the statute books 4 years.

2. Halal/kosher is an example of something much worse on the animal cruelty front, which even has the blessing of the State and big business* and the blind eye of animal rights groups (even the violent nutter ones). I know I'm on my high horse about Islam a lot but I wasn't going to make a full scale tattoo out of it this time.

Joined-up government time do you think?

________________________________

* The Halal animal 'Auschwitz', right here in the UK: http://www.debatepolitics.com/europ...death-camp-and-sharia-stock-exchange-hmm.html
 
Last edited:

Wiseone

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,177
Reaction score
7,551
Location
Ft. Campbell, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well I agree that the woman being punished for who she sold a goldfish to is ridiculous. However, its hard to claim as evidence that animal rights groups are turning a blind eye to halal/kosher food preparation when you post a story that begins with:
The Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), which advises the government on how to avoid cruelty to livestock, says the way Kosher and Halal meat is produced causes severe suffering to animals.
 

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It took them long enough. And as nothing usually gets said, it's hard to find any links to that nothing! This the first I've ever heard of a single advisory committee actually bothering to voice its concern over the method of slaughter. But there's been no big high-profile Paul McCartney's wife-type fuss over this though, or anything like the harassment vivisectionists have faced through the years. No newspaper splashes or paint thrown over people over this one, or bodies dug up (though that's probably just as well).

I applaud the FAWC for its lonely stand, though a few small groups like VIVA bother supermarkets once in a while before disappearing back into obscurity. But overall nobody from these animal groups care too much, probably because they're scared of the old 'racist' slander.


Animal rights activists attack ASDA for stocking 'cruel' Halal meat| News | This is London - It can really pick its suppliers can't it?!


And, to get back to the point, if we were to see halal as illegal as 'dodgy' pet shop service then I'd have a bit less to whine about in the thread!
 
Last edited:

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
18,696
Reaction score
8,703
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
-- 1. That old woman was stung for something that's only a crime in the eyes of legislators (selling a fish to a 14-year old, and one who looked older to boot). And it's only been on the statute books 4 years.

The argument isn't what defines a crime or whether an 80 year old is convicted but about selling animals to underage citizens. It's a crime - and you'd be claiming left wing crime if the animals being sold were pit bull terriers to young gang members.

--2. Halal/kosher is an example of something much worse on the animal cruelty front --

The story of a grandmother selling to an underage citizen isn't about animal cruelty but about breaking a law and putting an animal's life into the hands of a child. I also wonder when you will complain about the cruel deaths of millions of fish when hauled out of the sea and into a non water environment to die a slow painfull drowning in air.
Is that not worse than slitting an animal's throat in halah or kosher slaughter of animals?
 

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Oooo, can't put an animal in the charge of a child! Surely there's no historical precedent for kids being able to take care of poor little fishy-wishies, squeaky wittle guinea pigs or fwuffy bunny-wabbits!

Other loopy legislation under this government include being fined for putting your bin out on the wrong day/having it too full and for not having a bicycle bell. They've come out with a skipful of annoyingly jobsworth-friendly policies, equalled only by the EU.

But on the other side of the coin, real criminals are more likely to be let off with cautions as the jails are too full. Point of principle to be the first government since Victorian times not to build more jails to mirror the rising population. There's your 'left wing crime' and they have no idea how they're in the wrong!

Good to know our masters once again have things in priority!


_____________________

Woman fined, tagged and given curfew -- for selling goldfish - Asylum.co.uk

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1262676/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-If-justice-Im-goldfish.html

Gareth Corkhill: I left my wheelie bin lid open 4ins ..now I've got a criminal record - mirror.co.uk

£2,500 - As Labour targets cycle safety, the huge fines serial offenders could face for not having a bell| News | This is London

Howard Jacobson: Thanks to New Labour, we can say goodbye to our civil liberties - and Polish potatoes - Howard Jacobson, Commentators - The Independent

Four in 10 serious criminals let off with a caution - Telegraph
 
Last edited:

Djoop

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
1,932
Reaction score
683
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Animals that are born and live in water are all Haram with the exception of fish. All types of fishes are Halal, with the exception of that which dies naturally in the sea without any external cause. However, if a fish was to die due to some external cause such as cold, heat, being thrown to the shore by the water, colliding with a stone, etc, then it would be Halal:)
So whales are haram? If so, one up for Islam.

I'm certainly no fan of Islam but I think this criticism is a bit over the top. Otherwise, RoP has to explain me why this is such an isseu. How cruel is Halal food exactly, especially in comparison to 'our' own animal cruelty (like the bio-industry).

On the goldfish; The UK tries to top NL when it comes to stupendous laws and with the curent Labour government they seem to have a winner.
 

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I just used halal in a stark example of disjointed government, seeing as it is indeed cruel, technically needless and people have at least an idea what it is.

Although I probably couldn't watch a tv programme about animal testing, there can still be a fig leaf of justification if things like that can help beat cancer or something. But I don't think there's any point in doing it to test shampoo or cosmetics, seeing as we have all we need by now.

______________________

I forgot to mention one barmy law by the way - not being allowed to sell squirrels:

[ame=http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=new+labour+illegal+sell+squirrels&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8]new labour illegal sell squirrels - Google Search[/ame]



I think it's all part of a New Labour play-act. I think the message is "Oh look here you bigots, things really have only gotten better, despite your so-called 'evidence'. That's why all we can do now is foist rubbish and petty persecution to pass the time!"
 

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
18,696
Reaction score
8,703
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Oooo, can't put an animal in the charge of a child! Surely there's no historical precedent for kids being able to take care of poor little fishy-wishies, squeaky wittle guinea pigs or fwuffy bunny-wabbits!

You're deliberately misreading - "buying" has a different dictionary definition to "in charge of." Not even your favourite loony left labour govt would try and stop people allowing children to supervise or look after an animal - that would require police powers to intrude in every home.
 

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
And you're deliberately splitting hairs - but this horse is too dead to flog, so you may as well.

If you ban kids from buying animals then obviously you don't want them to take care of their own pets. Otherwise, why ban 'em? Especially when parents can do the filthy, degrading deal on their behalf when little Jimmy age 9 wants a gekko anyway.



The real question perhaps is to ask what (or who) the Government are so scared of to keep halal going, whilst this rubbish passed into the statute books with straight faces all round.

Particularly when Labour people up the ante of schitzophrenic hypocrisy yet another notch by calling for ZOOS and CIRCUSES to be banned:

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Labour call to ban zoos

Surely if you want to ban circuses because of animal abuses by some ringmasters then surely kosher/halal should also be outlawed?*


LABOUR - Spoiling the fun for ordinary kids, whilst letting dogmatic reactionaries torture animals for 'cultural' reasons as only experts can!


____________________________

* Perhaps it's got something to do with certain people causing trouble if you want them to modernise? God, they're on a par with the EDL at times!
 
Last edited:

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
18,696
Reaction score
8,703
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
And you're deliberately splitting hairs - but this horse is too dead to flog, so you may as well.

Can't take the heat?

If you ban kids from buying animals then obviously you don't want them to take care of their own pets. Otherwise, why ban 'em? Especially when parents can do the filthy, degrading deal on their behalf when little Jimmy age 9 wants a gekko anyway.

The shopkeeper was already on a warning for previously selling gerbils to a mentally handicapped teenage girl who killed the gerbils in a coffee cup.

Apparently when trading standards went in, there was a parrot with a broken leg apparently in distress.

While in the shop, the council officer who was with the boy noticed a cockatiel in a poor state of health with a sign on the cage that said ‘cockatiels £30’.

The officer, along with a vet, returned to the Ashfield Road shop last July and the vet diagnosed the bird had a broken leg, eye problems and laboured breathing. It was so unwell it had to be put down.

It's not the simple case you keep trying to paint. You had half the story and went off half cocked on some strange tangent about kosher and halal - and you still haven't said anything about the millions of fish who are dragged out of the sea to drown slowly and painfully in air. Why no complaint from you about cruelty to fish?

-- he real question perhaps is to ask what (or who) the Government are so scared of to keep halal going, whilst this rubbish passed into the statute books with straight faces all round.

Particularly when Labour people up the ante of schitzophrenic hypocrisy yet another notch by calling for ZOOS and CIRCUSES to be banned:

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Labour call to ban zoos

Surely if you want to ban circuses because of animal abuses by some ringmasters then surely kosher/halal should also be outlawed?*


LABOUR - Spoiling the fun for ordinary kids, whilst letting dogmatic reactionaries torture animals for 'cultural' reasons as only experts can!


____________________________

* Perhaps it's got something to do with certain people causing trouble if you want them to modernise? God, they're on a par with the EDL at times!

Don't keep digressing - answer some direct questions directly instead of speaking about flogging horses (halal flogging?)
 

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Can't take the heat of a dead horse? I think that would be because it's decomposing at an abnormal rate old son! Nevertheless I can still this running, if only by putting it on a trolley and pushing the thing!


I've got a feeling there'd be noise from the usual suspects if that shopkeeper woman DIDN'T sell the rodent to the handicapped girl. If that got in the papers, Guardian perhaps, there'd be all kinds of liberal wailing about Equal Ops! (Or if not that then certainly uptight lectures about the principle of the thing!)

There may well have been a parrot with a disabilty for sale (why discriminate on grounds of disability, etc?!), but that was irrelevant to the charge she was trapped on.

Also irrelevant is your 'fish' question. But I'll still say that all creatures for food must die and all death isn't really very nice. But there's no other way to land fish, especially in such quantities needed to feed a modern bloated populace. However, death by halal IS avoidable, ISN'T the only and most humane option and IS ONLY allowed because there may be very loud whining if it isn't.


There. I've answered a direct question, now answer mine: Why should zoos be banned, or shopkeepers tricked into selling 'illegal' fish to get prosecuted, whilst the Government doesn't care a jot about the many more animal victims of kosher/halal?
 

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
18,696
Reaction score
8,703
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Can't take the heat of a dead horse? I think that would be because it's decomposing at an abnormal rate old son! Nevertheless I can still this running, if only by putting it on a trolley and pushing the thing!

You misunderstood.

-- I've got a feeling there'd be noise from the usual suspects if that shopkeeper woman DIDN'T sell the rodent to the handicapped girl. If that got in the papers, Guardian perhaps, there'd be all kinds of liberal wailing about Equal Ops! (Or if not that then certainly uptight lectures about the principle of the thing!)

Ah, deflection again. Firstly there are laws about selling animals to children (not laws against children buying) and the shop keeper had sold animals before to children. Manchester trading standards took action only after the dead gerbil story. The woman had repeatedly flouted laws leading to deaths / animal cruelty. The newspapers (and you) only shout out about foolish laws when she has been found guilty of breaking a law - not worrying about the cruelty beforehand.

Which leads me to this -

-- Also irrelevant is your 'fish' question. But I'll still say that all creatures for food must die and all death isn't really very nice. But there's no other way to land fish, especially in such quantities needed to feed a modern bloated populace.

Anglers can stun their capture - a blow to the head quickly kills the animal. Pure numbers is not a defence IF you are truly upset about animal cruelty.

All you do is show that your interest is in what Muslims do on a small scale in comparison to what trawlermen around the world do on a huge scale.

However, death by halal IS avoidable, ISN'T the only and most humane option and IS ONLY allowed because there may be very loud whining if it isn't.

-- I've answered a direct question, now answer mine: Why should zoos be banned, or shopkeepers tricked into selling 'illegal' fish to get prosecuted, whilst the Government doesn't care a jot about the many more animal victims of kosher/halal?

I've answered your red herring regarding the goldfish - get over it and go do some research. It wasn't the woman's first illegal act. As for the zoo - I'll have to look at whatever link / story you posted.
 

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
18,696
Reaction score
8,703
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
-- Particularly when Labour people up the ante of schitzophrenic hypocrisy yet another notch by calling for ZOOS and CIRCUSES to be banned:

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Labour call to ban zoos --

OK, looked at your story (and your own link) and a couple of things stand out.

-- Labour minister Angela Smith, who called the popular entertainments “relics of the Victorian era” -- Ms Smith, who earlier this year boycotted an event she was due to attend in her capacity as a minister because it was being held at London Zoo, is patron of the Captive Animals’ Protection Society campaign group.
The body believes zoos are part of the entertainment industry and that while they claim to do important work for conservation, endangered and captive bred species are rarely, if ever, released back into the wild -- However, Animal Welfare Minister Jim Fitzpatrick said his Government colleague had overstepped her remit.
He said: “Angela doesn’t have responsibility for this area. We’re not going anywhere near zoos.”

So there you have it - a "non story." Labour are not proposing a ban on zoos - one individual minister overstepped her remit and spoke more from her pressure group's stance than a government stance - but you don't care about that: which is why instead of reading the story and leaving it, you jumped on a Halal / Kosher story you imagined to be there.
 

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Come come. Come come come now. Oh come now come now, come now come! Come now... You accuse me of deflection whilst you do the same yourself!

Another reply, another attempt at splitting hairs. As I say, if you ban shopkeepers from selling animals to kids then that effectively bans kids from buying them.

What's more you said before that this story wasn't about animal cruelty, but all of a sudden it now is! Plus, had the woman been prosecuted over the other alleged incidents then I wouldn't be talking about an underhand and sneaky sting involving an 'overage'-looking kid.


You then talk about anglers being able to stun their catch but then switch to talking about trawlermen instead. Anglers only catch a few fish, mainly for pleasure before throwing them back, whilst trawlermen land hundreds at a time for food.



Red herring over the goldfish! Very amusing! I'll take your aloofness with jest!


And as for the zoo story, I merely made the point that people from Labour can bang on about animal rights in regards to zoos, pet shops and circuses but leave this huge hole where the kosher/halal issue sits! (Nothing falls apart by you pointing out the 'wrong' minister!) And I can't be somehow shoehorning halal in, seeing as it was what I started the topic off with in the first place!


Now... address the question you erroneously claimed to have answered: Why should zoos be banned, or shopkeepers tricked into selling 'illegal' fish to get prosecuted, whilst the Government doesn't care a jot about the many more animal victims of kosher/halal?
 
Last edited:

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
All you do is show that your interest is in what Muslims do on a small scale in comparison to what trawlermen around the world do on a huge scale.

However, death by halal IS avoidable, ISN'T the only and most humane option and IS ONLY allowed because there may be very loud whining if it isn't.


Glad to see we're in accord over something (second sentence), though it does look remarkably like what I said the previous statement... Word for word by the look if it.... Hmm.....



Halal isn't on a small scale though. It's epidemic. Muslims boast, in a virtually passive-aggressive manner at the very least, that they're adherents of the fastest growing religion, so we'd better get used to it. Their 'practices' need keep up with this apparent demographic nuclear explosion.

News Excerpts about Islam - The Fastest Growing Religion - What they say?
 
Last edited:

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
18,696
Reaction score
8,703
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Come come. Come come come now. Oh come now come now, come now come! Come now... You accuse me of deflection whilst you do the same yourself!

Another reply, another attempt at splitting hairs. As I say, if you ban shopkeepers from selling animals to kids then that effectively bans kids from buying them.

How is that splitting hairs? One is easier to police and the other is fraught with dangerous police powers. I can't say it any clearer - you can control sale of animals to underage buyers but to police children buying is another matter.

What's more you said before that this story wasn't about animal cruelty, but all of a sudden it now is! Plus, had the woman been prosecuted over the other alleged incidents then I wouldn't be talking about an underhand and sneaky sting involving an 'overage'-looking kid.

So what are you complaining about? That this woman sold animals after repeated warnings or that you think she did this only once and there was an over-reaction?

-- You then talk about anglers being able to stun their catch but then switch to talking about trawlermen instead. Anglers only catch a few fish, mainly for pleasure before throwing them back, whilst trawlermen land hundreds at a time for food.

If you complain about a million animals cruelly killed - why not about one? Oh wait - this is because you know how foolish it would be to complain that fish die a cruel death. :roll:

-- And as for the zoo story, I merely made the point that people from Labour can bang on about animal rights in regards to zoos, pet shops and circuses but leave this huge hole where the kosher/halal issue sits! (Nothing falls apart by you pointing out the 'wrong' minister!) And I can't be somehow shoehorning halal in, seeing as it was what I started the topic off with in the first place!

You'd make a better case against Halal if you dealt with it directly - instead of dragging up some silly anti-Muslim connection in virtually every story / thread you create.

-- Now... address the question you erroneously claimed to have answered: Why should zoos be banned, or shopkeepers tricked into selling 'illegal' fish to get prosecuted, whilst the Government doesn't care a jot about the many more animal victims of kosher/halal?

See above post.

Glad to see we're in accord over something (second sentence), though it does look remarkably like what I said the previous statement... Word for word by the look if it.... Hmm.....

Yeah, I feel the will to live slipping away when replying your threads sometimes and mistakes slip in. That was part of your previous post that I didn't mean to include.

-- Halal isn't on a small scale though. It's epidemic. Muslims boast, in a virtually passive-aggressive manner at the very least, that they're adherents of the fastest growing religion, so we'd better get used to it. Their 'practices' need keep up with this apparent demographic nuclear explosion.

News Excerpts about Islam - The Fastest Growing Religion - What they say?

:doh
 

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
On the first point, it is splitting hairs because you get to the same destination via the most expedient route - not having kids get their own pets by banning the sale of animals to them.



And as I say, if the pet shop woman had been collared on any real charges, as opposed to one fabricated in a sting, then I wouldn't have been able to include the story.

And as for the fish, I repeat again that it wouldn't be practical for trawlermen to stun and kill each one in turn, whilst with halal you can have practical control over how the animals expire.



And in the end the question is still avoided as to how the issue of kosher/halal is left out of the whole animal rights debate. Who's to be afraid of?

Let's have it again, just to refresh ourselves. And just to be fair, I'll amend it a touch: Why should zoos be banned, or shopkeepers tricked into selling 'illegal' fish to get prosecuted, whilst the Government doesn't [seem to] care a jot about the many more animal victims of kosher/halal?
 
Last edited:

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
18,696
Reaction score
8,703
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
On the first point, it is splitting hairs because you get to the same destination via the most expedient route - not having kids get their own pets by banning the sale of animals to them.

I've answered this ad nauseum. Further, you can't prosecute kids because they're kids. Unless you want me to explain age of responsibility in regards to proceedings between minors and adults?

I daresay I shall be repeating this answer for another 5 pages till you understand it.

-- And as I say, if the pet shop woman had been collared on any real charges, as opposed to one fabricated in a sting, then I wouldn't have been able to include the story.

You seem to think repeating something again and again makes some kind of point. Again - I've explained before and the Manchester Evening News also points out that this was not the first charge.

If you have any idea of police / legal practice in minor cases then you'll understand people usually get a caution. It's when they are stupid enough to keep repeating some mindless or illegal action that the police / legal authorities then take more drastic action.

I daresay I shall be repeating this answer for another 5 pages till you understand it.

--And as for the fish, I repeat again that it wouldn't be practical for trawlermen to stun and kill each one in turn, whilst with halal you can have practical control over how the animals expire.

You've tried to demonstrate that cruelty to animals is a terrible thing. Now when it's cruelty to millions of animals you can't be bothered. Are you "fishist" or something? Why do you care about cows and sheep but not fish?

And in the end the question is still avoided as to how the issue of kosher/halal is left out of the whole animal rights debate. Who's to be afraid of?

Let's have it again, just to refresh ourselves. And just to be fair, I'll amend it a touch: Why should zoos be banned, or shopkeepers tricked into selling 'illegal' fish to get prosecuted, whilst the Government doesn't [seem to] care a jot about the many more animal victims of kosher/halal?

Amend it as much as you like, I've answered it but will happily repeat my answer till it permeates in. Your answers are in previous posts. If you don't understand - say so, don't keep repeating if you think you're trying to show that I can't answer a question.

Besides - are you claiming the Govt (you put the word in) is (proposing or acting on) banning zoos? If so, please show some link that it's Govt policy. Are you saying it's Govt (and not local Manchester Trading Standards) who is or proposing to trick shopkeepers so they can prosecute them? If so, please show some link that it's Govt policy.
 

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yes indeed there is an age of responsibility at which kids can be deemed responsible for their actions, and like it or lump it there's a law to say you can't sell animals to kids. I just find it ironic that kids can be perfectly able to look after animals as much as adults if they have the wish. Just one of those things.


Well as I say, if the woman had been collared for another parrot incident, for example, rather than being tricked into selling an animal to a boy who looked older then I'd not complain about the sneakiness of it all.



I don't mind you repeating things over the course of the next five pages. I'm flattered you like my company that much.


No, I'm not 'fishist'. I am bothered about cruelty to millions of animals but with kosher or halal you can quite easily stun them before killing them, a luxury you can't extend to fish without taking a day to land what you'd normally get in 10 minutes.


You know, I'm quite glad you said you'd answer my question as often as needed. Fact is I need to amend it again so we'd best disregard any previous alleged answers and start fresh. (I never spotted it.) Nice to know you're so accommodating, thank you very much.

We've had a link to the Labour person banging on about zoos and what-not. And though Manchester Trading standards are an entity apart from HM Government, the two are related by legislation. The point was questioning the hypocrisy of Labour people going on about animal rights without one word of mention about halal, something actually encouraged.


Here it is again, in its re-re-amended form: Why should zoos be banned [in the opinion of that Labour person, though legislation is yet to be submitted], or shopkeepers tricked into selling 'illegal' fish [by trading standards officers not directly intimate with government policy makers or advisors] to get prosecuted [though evidently not in an effort to criminalise minors], whilst the Government doesn't [seem to] care a jot about the many more animal victims of kosher/halal? [Though in some quarters the fate of trawled fish are comparible.]
 
Last edited:

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
18,696
Reaction score
8,703
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yes indeed there is an age of responsibility at which kids can be deemed responsible for their actions, and like it or lump it there's a law to say you can't sell animals to kids. I just find it ironic that kids can be perfectly able to look after animals as much as adults if they have the wish. Just one of those things.

Thank you for understanding it at last. There is a gulf of difference between "little Johnny" looking after dad's pit bull terrier or being left with dad's pit bull terrier and "little johnny" heading off to buy a pit bull terrier.

Having worked in courts before (in child cases too) I can tell you that courts assume a form of parental responsibility - aforementioned "little johnny" looking after the family pet is assumed to have had the responsibility agreed through a parent. "Little Johnny" heading off with pocket money to buy an animal is not - thus parental responsibility shifts to the shopkeeper and if shopkeeper decides "what the heck" - then they face the consequences.


Well as I say, if the woman had been collared for another parrot incident, for example, rather than being tricked into selling an animal to a boy who looked older then I'd not complain about the sneakiness of it all.

Sneakiness is how trading standards have to work. Very few agencies have the power to take serious action on first offence. Even drink driving can find someone being cautioned - this shop keeper wasn't doing this for the first time - she was a multiple offender thus deserves no sympathy except from those determined to ignore repeat offences for whatever personal reasons.

I don't mind you repeating things over the course of the next five pages. I'm flattered you like my company that much.

:lol:

No, I'm not 'fishist'. I am bothered about cruelty to millions of animals but with kosher or halal you can quite easily stun them before killing them, a luxury you can't extend to fish without taking a day to land what you'd normally get in 10 minutes.

Yes, but I suspect your "upset" is not for animal cruelty but only where muslims are concerned with animal slaughter. Why be upset about the (proportionately) small number of cows slaughtered daily to the huge numbers of fish who die a slower and more painful death each day?

Would you be less upset if as many cows were slaughtered in Halal methods as fish die in nets?


-- We've had a link to the Labour person banging on about zoos and what-not. And though Manchester Trading standards are an entity apart from HM Government, the two are related by legislation. The point was questioning the hypocrisy of Labour people going on about animal rights without one word of mention about halal, something actually encouraged.

You take on board that the person is NOT representative of Govt policy where animal cruelty is concerned but you continue to use her as if she was?

This is why we keep going in circles...


Here it is again, in its re-re-amended form: Why should zoos be banned [in the opinion of that Labour person, though legislation is yet to be submitted], or shopkeepers tricked into selling 'illegal' fish [by trading standards officers not directly intimate with government policy makers or advisors] to get prosecuted [though evidently not in an effort to criminalise minors], whilst the Government doesn't [seem to] care a jot about the many more animal victims of kosher/halal? [Though in some quarters the fate of trawled fish are comparible.]

Quod erat demonstrandum.

She is an individual in the regard that she speaks outside her Govt remit, she is individual in that animal welfare is not her responsibility but because she says something you continue to ask why someone (who is not a Govt official concerned with Animal welfare) is responsible for a govt policy that does not exist.

When you repeat yourself again - I will simply reply - "refer to this post." Just so you know.
 
Top Bottom