Forum menu
I guess that it's the life sciences bods that are already drooling in anticipation?
What happened to the animal rights people?
They seemed to garner more publicity 'back then' (1970's to early 1990's)
Might be worth protesting over the amendment by walking out, en-masse, from premier league/ rugby/ cricket matches.
For inspiration...
Pranks (Re/Search, No. 11) https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0940642107/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_dfneAb63N82KJ
First question why would you remove it? Don't think anyone has come up with a good reason yet. Perhaps this should be the default position for all of the transfers of laws. It's in unless you have a good reason to remove it and will admit what that is.
I guess that it's the life sciences bods that are already drooling in anticipation?
UK legislation on research (and, indeed, other) animals has been far ahead of other European countries for decades, long before this was inserted in the Lisbon Treaty.
I see our local Tory drone voted no.
What a surprise.
Hope the Tories get obliterated at the next election. Not so much for this but for the utter contempt they show for and sort of care in society.
For humans or animals!
Don't forget they are treating the NHS and the people it serves...US, with the same contempt.
They are just more efficient at killing animals.
Makes my blood boil.
But ninfan that is not a reason for removing it. Looks like a backwards step, can you come up with any good reason to remove it?
Signed and shared.
What sort of ****tards do we have running this country that they decide that animals are not capable of feeling fear or pain? And why repeal it, if not to set a path to lower/easier animal welfare standards, increased animal testing or bring back fox hunting??
Utterly disgusting, the government should be ashamed of itself.
Surprise surprise our new local Tory MP against it.
The prick really does seem to lack any form of redeeming human qualities.
👿
From a speech Gove made in July 2017 when he answered questions in the HoC after being made sec of State of Farming and Rural Affairs
[i]"The Government have made it clear that we intend, as a minimum, to retain our existing standards of environmental and animal welfare once we have left the EU".[/i]
and more crucially in a direct question about animal setinece
[i]Q: Henry Smith MP (Crawley): Can my right hon. Friend confirm that article 13 of the Lisbon treaty, which categorises animals as sentient beings, will be part of the repeal Bill?
A: Absolutely. Before we entered the European Union, we recognised in our own legislation that animals were sentient beings. I am an animal; we are all animals, and therefore I care—[Interruption.] I am predominantly herbivorous, I should add. It is an absolutely vital commitment that we have to ensure that all creation is maintained, enhanced and protected[/i]
Make of that what you want.
jambalaya - Member
Plenty of inhumane treatment of animals within the EU (which has a track record of ignoring the abuses not least in Pork production in Eastern Europe which is still able to be impirted into the UK). The “sentinal” designation makes no difference to hunting which is widely practiced in Europe (much more so than in UK) nor indeed bull fighting in Spain for example.I did check and Labour did indeed vote against, I had wondered whether this was one of the amendments Corbyn had ordered his MPs to abstain on.
POSTED 9 HOURS AGO # REPORT-POST
ninfan - Member
I guess that it's the life sciences bods that are already drooling in anticipation?
UK legislation on research (and, indeed, other) animals has been far ahead of other European countries for decades, long before this was inserted in the Lisbon Treaty.POSTED 6 HOURS AGO # REPORT-POST
Predictable lines of argument from the Nasty Party central drones.
So, any good reason why we should take a retrograde step, or are we just going to go down the "some other people are worse, therefore (leap of logic deliberate fail alert) we are ok" line?
It's symptomatic of how we are going to be 'competing' post-Brexit. Attracting inward investment by engaging in a race to the bottom with whoever else 'competes' in that area. Who benefits? Exploitative multinationals whose profits end up in the pockets of the 0.1%. ****ing great.
A: Absolutely. Before we entered the European Union, we recognised in our own legislation that animals were sentient beings. I am an animal; we are all animals, and therefore I care—[Interruption.] I am predominantly herbivorous, I should add. It is an absolutely vital commitment that we have to ensure that all creation is maintained, enhanced and protected
Presumably then, Gove is the first sentient being in the queue for the vivisectionists?
That is if he isn't flattering himself by implying he is sentient.
By the way.
Are trolls classed as sentient creatures?
and then continue eating your bacon and sausages and then move onNo offence but if you really GAS stop eating them - they dont really like that bit however "nice" you decide to slaughter them
..then you accuse me of trolling?
Absolutely. Before we entered the European Union, we recognised in our own legislation that animals were sentient beings.
If this was already in place then hopefully we just revert to that? I assume that it is still on the statute books and EU law just took precedence?
Absolutely.
Well he lied. We know that now.
Before we entered the European Union, we recognised in our own legislation that animals were sentient beings.
If you read the Farming UK article in my OP, you will see:
The RSPCA, which said the move is "disappointing", said this is not the case; the term sentience or sentient being doesn't appear once in that Act, and, the animal welfare charity said, doesn't cover all animals.
Back to (sick in mouth) Gove
It is an absolutely vital commitment that we have to ensure that all creation is maintained, enhanced and protected
Excuse me Mr Gove, but you are not to be trusted. And WTAF does that even mean? If a mythical bullshitting Borg had a 'Bible', that would for sure be an extract from that book. Stilted, ambiguous/ripe for endless interpretation, yet ultimately meaningless.
Ongoing shame on this government when it comes to the welfare and recognition of any living being who isn't looking back from the mirror.
Strange posts from the usual suspects.
How they think is a complete mystery to me.
They don't even agree with Gove, yet they are instantly in the position of arguing (I'm not sure what).
It's just a "how dare anyone criticize our tory overlords. I'm going to step in to defend them even though I know it's indefensible".
Are the A.L.F still going?
Blimey.. Richard Benyon voted No! That's actually surprising 😕
It's just a "how dare anyone criticize our tory overlords. I'm going to step in to defend them even though I know it's indefensible".
Which is why their credibility is non-existent.
First question why would you remove it? Don't think anyone has come up with a good reason yet.
Seriously? How do you lot think the world works? It's all about money - welfare regs have an effect on the profitability of farming.
Are the A.L.F still going?
There's far more respectable organisations involved in animal welfare from a non sensationalist science based perspective
https://action.ciwf.org.uk/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=119&ea.campaign.id=74771
bigjim that ciwf petition is AFAIK no longer useful since the vote a few days ago.
I posted the 'take action' update at top of this page, here again:
So, any good reason why we should take a retrograde step
What is it that you think is so important about having the word “sentient” in the legislation? There is no clearly accepted interpretation of this word, there is no qualification of what duties this imposes, as we can plainly see from the piteous state of animal welfare protection in other European countries
they decide that animals are not capable of feeling fear or pain?
Nonsense - in fact the lab animal welfare legislation has recognised and regulated anything likely to cause “pain, suffering distress or lasting harm” since 1986. Personally I think that this is FAR more specific and useful than some well meaning but undefined concept of “sentience”, and I would far prefer the successor UK legislation to utilise such specific wording than anything adopted by the EU.
Going to answer the question, Z11? No, thought not.
Shared & email sent.
Just a portent of what those evil fekers want to ditch.
God I hate the Tories.
And remember everyone told us not to worry as all laws would come over as is. This will be the start of much more.
Nonsense? Ok, I'll bite.
"Responding to the decision, British Veterinary Association Senior Vice President Gudrun Ravetz said:
'It is extremely concerning that a marginal majority of MPs have voted-down this seminal clause. [b]Enshrining animal sentience in UK law would have acknowledged that we consider animals as being capable of feelings such as pain and contentment and, so, deserving of consideration and respect.[/b] It is a founding principle of animal welfare science, and for the way that we should treat all animals.'
That's just the BVA (who I'm guessing are pretty well versed in animal welfare) saying that the MPs have decided not to consider animals as being capable of feelings such as pain and contentment.
So not nonsense then.
acknowledged that we consider animals as being capable of feelings such as pain and contentment
All animals?
As I’ve said, the EU article is ill defined, unclear, non-specific and largely disregarded by other EU countries. It was a sop to the animal rights movement from the start ~ classic virtue signalling. I’d rather have workable legislation that actually does something practical to protect animals (and I spent years working under the tightest animal welfare legislation and oversight structure in the world, and was able to actually visit compare it with that in other EU countries). I think the recent consultation on CCTV in slaughterhouses proves just how far ahead of the rest of the world we are in delivering this.
So why remove it, what part was un workable?
Why did the idiot say this
[img] 
[/img]
(again copied from earlier)
Q: Henry Smith MP (Crawley): Can my right hon. Friend confirm that article 13 of the Lisbon treaty, which categorises animals as sentient beings, will be part of the repeal Bill?A: Absolutely. Before we entered the European Union, we recognised in our own legislation that animals were sentient beings. I am an animal; we are all animals, and therefore I care—[Interruption.] I am predominantly herbivorous, I should add. It is an absolutely vital commitment that we have to ensure that all creation is maintained, enhanced and protected
What has changed his mind, what were the reasons for removing it - there must be some specific ones, who has lobbied and asked for it to be removed?
Also, what else are they going to try and drop?
jambalaya - Member
If this is such a big deal where were Labour ?
That's why we call them the Red Tories up here.
When you look at how this govt treats the weak and vulnerable humans, it's hard to imagine them really giving a stuff about the treatment of animals - other than their horses and dogs.
As successive govts strip away pensions, care and health facilities, euthanasia of the unproductive is just a matter of time.
If non-sentience is an excuse for inhumane treatment, maybe it's only a matter of time before the Govt declares the unemployed and past work age classes to be non-sentient, eg, is a patient with advanced dementia as sentient as a dog?
Orwell was a prophet.
Blimey.. Richard Benyon voted No! That's actually surprising
If you think that’s surprising you need to do some digging into his background (e.g [url= https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2012/apr/20/richard-benyons-inclosure-quarry ]this[/url])
But if you read that quote properly, it says we already recognised animals as sentient in all but name before the EU bill. That's why the EU is such a crock of shite. Meaningless expensive layers of smug red tape that the semi 3rd world parts of mainland Europe ignore anyway.
What's important is maintaining our status as world leaders in how we treat animals- what's not is slavishly smothering ourselves with pompous and meaningless EU drivel that we are now free to shake off.
what's not is slavishly smothering ourselves with pompous and meaningless EU drivel that we are now free to shake off.
So was gove deliberately telling lies or just didn't research his answer before saying explicitly it wouldn't change?
And if it doesn't matter why remove the word and waste parliamentary time when it is so precious?
Meaningless expensive layers of smug red tape
If that is the case then I do wonder why it was proposed by Lucas and backed by pretty much everyone other than the Tories?
classic virtue signalling
Who gives a F if it is??
It's about right & wrong.
Animals do feel pain & contemptment that I can 100% fing assure you.
This is plain bloody wrong.
End of story.
Taking your RW whining elsewhere!
I’d rather have workable legislation that actually does something practical to protect animals
ninfan, the protocol that underpins/ recognises animals as 'sentient' is not an 'either/or' scenario. To pretend otherwise is confusing.
Please explain how you see that dropping it will improved animal welfare inthe UK?
Please explain how you see that keepng it would hinder animal welfare in the UK?
classic virtue signalling
Who gives a F if it is??
I give a f if it is. Fortunately the cifw (along with countless other campaigners) not a 'vitrue signallers. They are campaigmers.
'Virtue signalling' is a strange term. It seems to be wieldd as an ad-hominem to mark someone as 'disingenuous' because they campaign for change.
Unlike Gove/Tories, who promise to be genuine, and then do exactly the opposite.
Talking of who - they only last-year tried to devolve animal welfare code guidance and hand it over to the meat-industry.
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/07/ministers-abandon-plan-to-scrap-farm-animal-welfare-codes-chicken-farming ]but virtue signallers sulked and guilted them into making a U-turn[/url]
classic virtue signalling
I'm not sure what exactly is wrong [i]"virtue signalling"[/i] in this instance?
It exists in the Lisbon Treaty as part of the set of guiding [b]Principles[/b].
It literally exists so that the EU can [i]signal[/i] which [i]virtues[/i] it wishes to be guided by.
In exactly the same way that [url= http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-the-functioning-of-the-european-union-and-comments/part-1-principles/title-ii-provisions-having-general-application/150-article-8.html ]Article 8[/url] says they want to [i]"promote equality, between men and women"[/i] or [url= http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-the-functioning-of-the-european-union-and-comments/part-1-principles/title-ii-provisions-having-general-application/153-article-11.html ]Article 11[/url] says [i]"Environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Union policies"[/i]
Here's the full [url= http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-the-functioning-of-the-european-union-and-comments/part-1-principles/title-ii-provisions-having-general-application/155-article-13.html ]Article 13[/url] text by the way:
In formulating and implementing the Union's agriculture, fisheries, transport, internal market, research and technological development and space policies, the Union and the Member States shall, since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals, while respecting the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.
What's wrong with that? Which part of that doesn't suit post-Brexit UK?
crosshair
But if you read that quote properly, it says we already recognised animals as sentient in all but name
cite please?
I have to say that I find "virtue signalling" one of the least worrying things I come across on a daily basis.
Rather amused that it bothers Ninfan quite so!
Only from above^
A: Absolutely. Before we entered the European Union, we recognised in our own legislation that animals were sentient beings
So if we already recognised it, the EU law did nothing practical to improve on it other than add needless red tape with a handy
get out clause for their own filthy habits., while respecting the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.
So if we already recognised it, the EU law did nothing practical to improve on it other than add needless red tape with a handy
So why do you have a problem removing the word? It seems people are pissed off by something they claim does nothing. The only thing this did was waste parliaments time and tell everyone that when they promised to not change anything it was a crock of shit.
It will, but not in the way you think.The removal of this law is to allow cheap imports of meat that's been in humanly treated.
Because imported inhumane meat is cheaper.
I don't think it's about getting cheaper meat on the table, and more about the USA government trade people having made clear that we must not agree anything with the EU as regards standards, or tie our hands by embedding EU principles in UK law, that would block them getting what the US wants from a trade deal with us… non-transparent lower standards for their exports to the UK. And we will NEED that trade deal.
Which part of that doesn't suit post-Brexit UK?
Which part of that doesn't suit the USA is the question to ask at every turn of the unraveling EU involvement in food and agriculture standards as applicable to the post-Brexit UK.
I don't have a problem with the word, just with the premise that a law from the EU that adds no practical benefit over those that preceded it should be blindly enshrined just because the EU is deemed superior by some.
Particularly as in the most important sense- the application of any law regardless of wording, we are way ahead of the mainland.
I don't see what's happening as a deception, merely a practical way of moving forward.
It is not about how the law is applied inside the UK. Or the rest to the EU. It's about the USA. Wake up.
EU law did nothing practical to improve on it other than add needless red tape with a handy
From the [url= https://www.farminguk.com/news/MPs-vote-to-reject-inclusion-of-animal-sentience-in-Withdrawal-Bill_47923.html ]Farming UK article[/url]:
[b]"Eighty percent of current animal welfare legislation comes from the EU"[/b]
How is that "nothing practical"??
I don't see what's happening as a deception, merely a practical way of moving forward.
The relevant minister was asked a direct and explicit question. His actions have been different to the direct and explicit question he was asked. That is deception and that is breaking your word.
crosshair
What's important is maintaining our status as world leaders in how we treat animals- what's not is slavishly smothering ourselves with pompous and meaningless EU drivel that we are now free to shake off.
And yet around 80% of UK animal welfare laws originate from the EU. Please explain yourself? Even takng EU legislation as a [b]minimum[/b], how does ripping it all up and leaving the EU maintain our status?
If it makes it easy - which of the following (for instances) 'pompous and meaningless drivel' would you tear up and trust to a Government who only last year attempted to begin the process of deregulation/handing code guidelines for animal welfare over to the meat and dairy industry?
1974 The Council of Europe passed a directive requiring that animals be rendered unconscious before slaughter.
1976 The European Convention for the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes, which mandates that animals be kept in conditions meeting their "physiological and ethological needs", is passed
1986 The Council of Europe issues the European Directive Regarding the Protection of Animals Used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes
1997 The European Union's Protocol on Animal Protection is annexed to the treaty establishing the European Community. The Protocol recognizes animals as "sentient beings" (rather than mere property) and requires countries to pay "full regard to the welfare requirements of animals" when making laws regarding their use.
1998 The EU passes the Council Directive 98/58/EC Concerning the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes, which is based on a revised Five Freedoms: freedom from hunger and thirst; from discomfort; from pain, injury, and disease; from fear and distress; and to express normal behavior
1999 The EU passes a law phasing out the use of barren battery cages
2003 EU bans the construction of new gestation crates
2006 The European Commission passes minimum requirements on the collection of information during inspection of animal farms so that the European Community can evaluate the impact of its welfare policies.
2006 Veal crates become illegal in the EU
2012 The EU's ban on battery cages goes into effect
2013 The EU ban on all gestation crates goes into effect.
I don't understand why Leavers are so keen to 'virtue signal' when it's patently obvious to most (including the BVA AND Farming UK) that there is a massive likelhood that things will likely get worse here for animals that we currently exploit as we would move to a more US-style trading platform (production/imports/exports).
Most anyone can agree that ivory trade (for instance) is now indefensible. Yet who tried to block the EU ban on ivory trade? Any guesses?
But then, you yourself seem to think that even minimum welfare protocol (ie recognition of sentience) is just more 'drivel' and 'red tape'?