Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
I would take no notice anyway.
This is the guy that thinks magazine pictures are offensive, but that barbaric slaughter of animals is ok.
Will be welcome if it happens, given that the article mentions some of this has been promised since 2017 and hasn't been implemented I'll reserve my praise until then.
They said it, not me. Glad to see they’re rowing back on it. Confirmation that Carrie Symonds is running the country though. She’s big into animal welfare issues I understand.
If you’re talking about me what are you going on about?I would take no notice anyway.
This is the guy that thinks magazine pictures are offensive, but that barbaric slaughter of animals is ok.
Will be welcome if it happens, given that the article mentions some of this has been promised since 2017 and hasn't been implemented I'll reserve my praise until then.
Have they said why they are introducing it now when in 2017 they voted against it and claimed it was unnecessary as existing laws covered this area?
That’s the job of the Northern Ireland protocol.Gove responded at the time - it was added on to the EU Withdrawal bill and they pledged to address but did not want such things clogging up Brexit.
Gove says UK law will specifically recognise animal sentience | Animal welfare | The Guardian
Will certainly welcome it when it happens. They should probably have let their MPs know so they don't make statements saying its not needed when questioned on why they voted against it, 'It is self-evident that animals are sentient and UK law already recognises this fact'.Gove responded at the time - it was added on to the EU Withdrawal bill and they pledged to address but did not want such things clogging up Brexit.
Gove says UK law will specifically recognise animal sentience | Animal welfare | The Guardian
Will certainly welcome it when it happens. They should probably have let their MPs know so they don't make statements saying its not needed when questioned on why they voted against it, 'It is self-evident that animals are sentient and UK law already recognises this fact'.
Isn't it a commitment in the Queen's Speech, rather than absolute guarantee? if things come up then things can slip, can't they?It has to now become actual law I assume so that the increasing crime of stealing dogs will carry a custodial sentence
Isn't it a commitment in the Queen's Speech, rather than absolute guarantee? if things come up then things can slip, can't they?
Still, it's good it's there regardless of theminutiae, and you'd assume it'd go through without much hassle too, as who would argue against it? The amendments put forward could be interesting, I guess...
I assume it also puts to bed any lingering thoughts of a vote to repeal the fox hunting ban?
It has to now become actual law I assume so that the increasing crime of stealing dogs will carry a custodial sentence
If you’re talking about me what are you going on about?
Firstly for the record all raising and slaughtering of animals for meat is barbaric and dairy is little to no better, whether it includes a religious ceremony or not is a complete irrelevant so stop talking bollocks about what I believe to be right or wrong about animal welfare. It’s all wrong. End off.The fact you make apologies for barbaric religious slaughter, but in the same breath say that cartoon pictures shouldn't be allowed.
No it's opinion surely?Firstly for the record all raising and slaughtering of animals for meat is barbaric and dairy is little to no better, whether it includes a religious ceremony or not is a complete irrelevant so stop talking bollocks about what I believe to be right or wrong about animal welfare. It’s all wrong. End off.
Cartoon images of Allah are offensive. That’s not my opinion, that’s fact. Show them all you like but just don’t be stupid enough to think that it should be consequence free when you’re setting out to upset one of the most widely practiced religions in the world.
No it's opinion surely?
No. It’s fact. A very well documented fact at that.No it's opinion surely?
So already one of the best countries in the world for animal welfare, now looking to take steps to improve that further. This is something to be proud of and should be applauded.
Well... semantically it's a fact that it offends people. That offence taken is arguably an opinion, definitely a subjective response, however.No. It’s fact. A very well documented fact at that.
Hope so, certainly needs to be tougher penalties. Although as recently as January the government were resisting calls to make changes to the law so I'm not too hopeful.It has to now become actual law I assume so that the increasing crime of stealing dogs will carry a custodial sentence
Current court sentencing guidelines for theft already take into account the emotional distress that theft of a family pet can have on owners
No. It’s fact. A very well documented fact at that.
You’re not a Muslim though. You can’t really be that stupid.It's really not, it's an opinion.
It doesn't offend me, I have the opinion that it isn't offensive.
If it was fact, I'd be offended.
You’re not a Muslim though. You can’t really be that stupid.
No it's opinion surely?
Just because you’re not offended personally doesn’t mean it’s not offensive. It really isn’t that difficult to understand.So it's the opinion of muslims then?
So it's the opinion of muslims then?
Just because you’re not offended personally doesn’t mean it’s not offensive. It really isn’t that difficult to understand.
It’s a fact that the general consensus of Islam is that it’s offensive to create an image of a prophet and has been for centuries. But a guy called Nick on a football forum isn’t personally offended so it outweighs centuries of consensus from one of the world’s most practiced religions.No, it means taking offense is an opinion rather than fact.
It’s a fact that the general consensus of Islam is that it’s offensive to create an image of a profit and has been for centuries. But a guy called Nick on a football forum isn’t personally offended so it outweighs centuries of consensus from one of the world’s most practiced religions.
It’s a fact that the general consensus of Islam is that it’s offensive to create an image of a profit and has been for centuries.
No it's opinion surely?
It’s a fact that the general consensus of Islam is that it’s offensive to create an image of a profit and has been for centuries. But a guy called Nick on a football forum isn’t personally offended so it outweighs centuries of consensus from one of the world’s most practiced religions.
Can we not just all agree that however the meat was killed, it still tastes great!
Well he's been made to look a bit of a fool with his brexit means worse animal welfare rubbish on this thread so he's going to double down on this, even though it is, of course, also bollocks.No, it's an opinion of some muslims that it's offensive.
It is purely just their opinion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?