World Gone Mad Again

[Muddypause]

Be warned, this involves the miserable demise of a heard of cows. Surely even the most die-hard carnivor would find this uttely unacceptable. It make absolutely no sense to me at all:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west ... 230628.stm

[Andy Hamilton]

Bloody hell, what a strange set of affairs.

As a die hard carnivore my first thought was why not send in the butchers and at least turn them into meat or something?? To get this straight the court has found them guilty of animal cruelty, so what do they do. - they allow the cows to starve to death. You are right this makes no sense at all.

[Shirley]

Double standards isn't it... either end the suffering or do something to stop it... it's a disgrace

[Camile]

Hi ..

That's crazy .. please tell me it's another photoshop work !

because them guys have been sent to jail for non respect of animal welfare ..
and by doing so .. they actualy make the life of them cows worst than it was with farmers breaching these laws ...

Please tell me I'm still sleepy ..
Camile

[Muddypause]

Alas this seems to be absolutely true.

Two farmers sent to jail for causing animal suffering, resulting in their herd of two hundred cows being left to starve to death.

What I can't really grasp is why the neighbouring farmers, and the local authorities all say they can't do anything because they will become 'liable'. Liable for what - reducing the suffering? Making the situation better? What's a community for, if it can't act in this sort of situation? Do they ask themselves if they are liable for the continuance of the suffering by doing nothing? I suspect this must be an insurance/litigation thing.

Shirlz is right - end the suffering or stop it - one way or another. There can never be an excuse for suffering, animal or human.

[Shirley]

I've just emailed Ben Bradshaw (agriculture minister).... probably won't make a difference but this has really sickened me.

[shiney]

Don't you just love the 'red tape' and liability thing? It's the world gone bonkers.

[Muddypause]

I've just emailed Ben Bradshaw (agriculture minister).... probably won't make a difference but this has really sickened me.

Well done, Shirlz, I've done the same. If anyone else wants to, try this email address: bradshawb@parliament.uk . The more the better.

[The Chili Monster]

A spokeswoman for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals said: "We are concerned about reports of animals suffering.

"We are getting back in touch with trading standards to clarify the legal position to see if we can help."

???Am I missing something here????

[hedgewizard]

I think if I were the magistrate here I'd be paying these guys a visit to let them know just how bad things can get if they don't give permission for the animals to be moved. And if the law has a mind to it can make things really, really bad. On the quiet like.

[Muddypause]

I'm surprised people aren't just chucking a few hay bales over the fence every day. Anonymously, like, if it has to be like that.

I find it hard to believe (I realise that I'm not there, and don't know the full details of the situation) that the neighbouring farmers, who have expressed concern, can't find a way to do something. Everybody seems to have adopted a position of 'we would, but...' Maybe these two guys are the local mafia, or something.

I can't find an update on the story anywhere.

[Stonehead]

I don't remember the exact wording of the laws, but it goes something like this:

1. If the animals had no indentifiable owner, then the council could feed them, have them slaughtered etc.

2. As they have a known owner, it it is the owner's responsibility (even if they can't do anything) so the council have to get a court order empowering them to go in and this is a lengthy process.

3. If you start feeding the animals or caring for them in any way, then you are assuming responsibility for them in the absence of the owner and have a positive duty to ensure their welfare. Basically, that means you then become liable under the law for their well-being and could be prosecuted yourself. (And in any case, how many farmers have enough feed for another 200 head of cattle?)

As for the RSPCA, despite the way they like to portray themselves, keep in mind that the

The RSPCA Inspectorate is NOT a public law enforcement body.

RSPCA Inspectors have NO special legal powers.

RSPCA Inspectors have NO special powers to arrest offenders.

RSPCA Inspectors have NO right to enter premises to inspect animals or to demand that people answer any of their questions.

RSPCA Inspectors have NO right of access to shows, fairs and markets other than as members of the public.

RSPCA Inspectors can only carry out any law enforcement function as an assistant to a police-officer, at that officer’s request.

RSPCA Inspectors have NO power to stop, obstruct or detain any vehicle carrying animals.

Whilst the RSPCA Inspectors staff can issue criminal proceedings against offenders, they do so by way of private prosecution.

[Muddypause]

Despite all that heaving cynisism, it is the RSPCA who are doing something to help in the end, and they get my vote of appreciation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west ... 235912.stm

All this 'liability' stuff - bollocks to that! What happened to 'doing the right thing'?

[Shirley]

Hoooorahhh!!!!!

[Stonehead]

Despite all that heaving cynisism, it is the RSPCA who are doing something to help in the end, and they get my vote of appreciation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west ... 235912.stm

All this 'liability' stuff - bollocks to that! What happened to 'doing the right thing'?

It's not heaving cynicism - just the law as it stands. The RSPCA were only able to act in this case because, as I said in my earlier post, they could only intervene when requested to do so by the police.