[bitontheslide]

that's unfortunately the levels that Corbyn's supporters will go to. Disgusting

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

that's unfortunately the levels that Corbyn's supporters will go to. Disgusting

Am sure all sides are equally as guilty to be fair....be good to have one media outlet that actually tells the truth regardless of who said or did what

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by MTVN

'No MPs did not pass a vote saying animals can’t feel pain or emotion': http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politic...e-11572216.amp

I can't believe there wasn't ONE single MP who didn't pass this awful piece of cruel legislation. Totally ridiculous. What the hell is going on in politics today??

[joeysteele]

Actually it is still a reflection of distrust towards the Cons.
This was an amendment put forward by Caroline Lucas to put into UK law the sentience of animals.

She argued the 2006 legislation of the UK only covered domestic animals.

Now it has to seem odd that every other party felt able to put this amendment in place except for the Cons and the DUP.

Why not just have supported it and transferred it fully into UK law if there is no other agenda on animal welfare.
Is this a move as to possible trade deals relating to animals with other Countries as some in Farming indicate it possibly is.

I don't get it,Caroline Lucas put it forward,what was the issue against not transferring it.
Why only the Cons and DUP.

I think not a fake story but one that opens up a lot of questions as to just what was the Cons issue of not transferring into UK law,this recognition of animal feeling and welfare.

The most surprising thing for me is that this deceitful govt.wasnt wanting to transfer this into UK law themselves anyway.
Why?

What other hidden agenda have they,I'd more easily believe they have such.
Every other Party,Labour,Lib Dems Green,Plaid Cymru,SNP could all support Lucas's amendment.
Only the Cons and DUP refused to and voted it down.

That stinks to high heaven for me.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by MTVN

The fuller picture:

This week a number of stories claiming the Tories had voted that animals are not sentient beings went mega-viral.

An article on the Independent website – shared thousands of times on social media – reported "The Tories have rejected all scientists and voted that animals don’t feel pain”. The Evening Standard claimed they “just voted that animals cannot feel pain or emotions”. The Indy, which has truly become one of the most downmarket trash clickbait websites around, even named and shamed the Tory MPs “who voted legislation on animals feeling pain and emotion”. These attacks were tweeted out by celebrities like Ben Fogle and Sue Perkins, politicians including Caroline Lucas and failed LibDem MP Sarah Olney, and petitions were signed by hundreds of thousands of unwitting animal lovers. The stats are huge...

Just one problem. It is fake news…

During last Wednesday’s debate, Tory MPs repeatedly explained that the government already recognised animal sentience and that the amendment was flawed. Read it here in Hansard– Tory MP after Tory MP stood up and agreed that animals are sentient. No MPs argued against animal sentience. It is just not true to say, as the Indy did, that “The Tories have rejected all scientists and voted that animals don’t feel pain”. Anyone who has seen the Environment Secretary with his Bichon Frise Snowy, or indeed the hedgehog above, knows these viral articles are fake news. This made up story, circulated by the Tories’ opponents for solely cynical reasons, is cutting through to animal lovers who think they can trust things they believe on the Independent website. This morning Michael Gove categorically committed the government to animal sentience once and for all. He couldn’t be clearer:

“This government will ensure that any necessary changes required to UK law are made in a rigorous and comprehensive way to ensure animal sentience is recognised after we leave the EU.”

Will that go as viral as the fake news BS that hoodwinked thousands in the last week?

https://order-order.com/2017/11/23/v...illion-people/

From Hansard...
Caroline Lucas

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for what has been an interesting and good debate, albeit sadly too short.

'I am disappointed by the Minister’s response to new clause 30. It is not good enough to claim that animal sentience is already covered by UK law by virtue of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 since the protocol is not even explicitly included or referred to in that Act and the word “sentience” does not appear anywhere in it. The Act applies only to companion animals—domestic pets. It does not apply to farm animals, wildlife or laboratory animals. For those reasons, I intend to press new clause 30 to a Division.​'

Enough trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes eh?

[parmnion]

You ****ing mugs.

[DemolitionRed]

Let's not allow our government to take a giant step back for animal welfare. it's not an absolute; it now goes to the House of Lords. There is a petition on Avvaz that needs 25,000 signatures to make the petition viable. It was up to 194,700 and counting!

https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en...imal_bill_loc/

[DemolitionRed]

Wow, there's a lot of anger about this in the farming world of all places. Farmers are suggesting its because the government will want to broaden factory farming after Brexit and export more meat animals to unknown slaughter practices abroad.

[Kizzy]

Of course they are it's bloody obvious, they're after battery farming cows like they did chickens!

'Poultry farms tend to be biggest, with seven out of the 10 largest housing more than 1 million birds, and the biggest two capable of holding 1.7 million and 1.4 million birds. The biggest pig farm found holds about 23,000 pigs, while the biggest cattle farm, in Lincolnshire, houses about 3,000 animals.'

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...gation-reveals

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Wow, there's a lot of anger about this in the farming world of all places. Farmers are suggesting its because the government will want to broaden factory farming after Brexit and export more meat animals to unknown slaughter practices abroad.

There is.
I just don't get why the Con and DUP MPs could not and would not,want this in UK law.

It shouldn't even be a controversial issue,it should be decency to want this transferred into UK law too.

It probably is as Farming sources indicate and as you have pointed out,to broaden,cheapen and cut corners on some animal welfare,particularly as to trade in the food chain,at the very least.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

From Hansard...
Caroline Lucas

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for what has been an interesting and good debate, albeit sadly too short.

'I am disappointed by the Minister’s response to new clause 30. It is not good enough to claim that animal sentience is already covered by UK law by virtue of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 since the protocol is not even explicitly included or referred to in that Act and the word “sentience” does not appear anywhere in it. The Act applies only to companion animals—domestic pets. It does not apply to farm animals, wildlife or laboratory animals. For those reasons, I intend to press new clause 30 to a Division.​'

Enough trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes eh?

Except that's not actually true about farm animals. From the Mirror link:


Doesn’t that only apply to pets? What about farm and lab animals?

Nope. It applies to farm animals too - in fact, there’s a whole section giving authorities the power to search farm premises to look for violations. Farm animal welfare is also regulated by the Welfare of Farmed Animals Regulations 2007.

It doesn’t specifically cover animals being used for scientific research, but only because they’re regulated by a different law - the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

So why are people upset about losing the word ‘sentient’ from the law?

The best argument being put forward by the Green Party and others is that including the statement that animals are sentient beings in law is a symbolic gesture.

It sends a message that we as a country are resolved that animals have the capacity to feel, and we protect them as such.

But in law, that’s mostly meaningless. It wouldn’t have any impact on how animal cruelty is prosecuted. And it’s possible it could introduce complications and philosophical arguments into legal actions in the future, which are neatly avoided by the Animal Welfare Act’s broad acceptance that all animals can feel suffering.

[MTVN]

The Indy admitting its original story was misleading:

Campaigners – and some news coverage – initially said that the Government had voted against recognising sentience.

The Independent was among publishers that reported the story in that way. But it became clear that this claim was not right, even though it had been interpreted by some campaigners in that way. (The Independent updated its coverage to ensure it was accurate).

http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...-a8072071.html

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by MTVN

The Indy admitting its original story was misleading:

Campaigners – and some news coverage – initially said that the Government had voted against recognising sentience.

The Independent was among publishers that reported the story in that way. But it became clear that this claim was not right, even though it had been interpreted by some campaigners in that way. (The Independent updated its coverage to ensure it was accurate).

http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...-a8072071.html

Thanks for this MTVN.

So what this means is, there has yet to be a debate.
This is why, if I'm going to read any paper I read the Independent.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Except that's not actually true about farm animals. From the Mirror link:


Doesn’t that only apply to pets? What about farm and lab animals?

Nope. It applies to farm animals too - in fact, there’s a whole section giving authorities the power to search farm premises to look for violations. Farm animal welfare is also regulated by the Welfare of Farmed Animals Regulations 2007.

It doesn’t specifically cover animals being used for scientific research, but only because they’re regulated by a different law - the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

So why are people upset about losing the word ‘sentient’ from the law?

The best argument being put forward by the Green Party and others is that including the statement that animals are sentient beings in law is a symbolic gesture.

It sends a message that we as a country are resolved that animals have the capacity to feel, and we protect them as such.

But in law, that’s mostly meaningless. It wouldn’t have any impact on how animal cruelty is prosecuted. And it’s possible it could introduce complications and philosophical arguments into legal actions in the future, which are neatly avoided by the Animal Welfare Act’s broad acceptance that all animals can feel suffering.

And the mirror is gospel now? I'll remember that.
People are worried with good reason, if the sentience of an animal has no importance then why include it in a vote, if it's taken as read that they do why the insistence on the clarification in parliament that they do not?

What complications and philosophical argument could arise during animal welfare cases in the future, how and why would they be any different?

'The Lisbon Treaty includes the specific recognition that animals are sentient (that’s part of article 13 of title II). Because that wording was transferred to UK law as part of being in the EU, the British government also has to act in keeping with that legislation, until Brexit.

But once the UK leaves the EU, that will no longer apply. If it’s going to stick around, it will have to be passed again through Parliament – and that’s what MPs refused to do this week.'

'Two of the most damaging and widely-read stories of the election campaign were about the Conservatives’ failure to support the fox hunting and ivory trade bans '

Goves statement that the vote was done as a “rejection of a faulty amendment”, Voting against the amendment was not a vote against the idea that animals are sentient and feel pain – that is a misconception.”

The argument that the government has is weak, the 2006 Act is too broad too weak and again only encompasses companion animals, some like yourself may not be alarmed by the lack of specifics....I am.
I would very much rather there was no room for argument should a case including he issue of sentience be made.

I also disagree that it was 'fake news' the wording wasn't for me misleading MPs did vote down animal sentience as by refusing the inclusion it amounts to the same thing, the hooha at the independent as well as Goves statement proves that they are more than a little rattled at their rather shifty move here that I'm sure they hoped would pass unnoticed.


http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...-a8072071.html

[joeysteele]

I never read papers or take much notice of them.
I saw Caroline Lucas propose the transfer into domestic UK law that animals were sentient beings.

That was her amendment in these debates.

The fact remains only the Con and DUP MPs out of all the Parties and MPs at Westminster,voted against that.
The govt only won this with DUP votes,313 to 295 was the result.

If it's no big issue why was the govt so intent on ensuring it had all its guns voting against said amendment.

I know nothing of the Independent since it went online only,I only know what Caroline Lucas proposed in her amendment.
I ask again,if there's nothing sinister why have only the Cons led the charge against such a simple proposed amendment.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by MTVN

The fuller picture:

This week a number of stories claiming the Tories had voted that animals are not sentient beings went mega-viral.

An article on the Independent website – shared thousands of times on social media – reported "The Tories have rejected all scientists and voted that animals don’t feel pain”. The Evening Standard claimed they “just voted that animals cannot feel pain or emotions”. The Indy, which has truly become one of the most downmarket trash clickbait websites around, even named and shamed the Tory MPs “who voted legislation on animals feeling pain and emotion”. These attacks were tweeted out by celebrities like Ben Fogle and Sue Perkins, politicians including Caroline Lucas and failed LibDem MP Sarah Olney, and petitions were signed by hundreds of thousands of unwitting animal lovers. The stats are huge...

Just one problem. It is fake news…

During last Wednesday’s debate, Tory MPs repeatedly explained that the government already recognised animal sentience and that the amendment was flawed. Read it here in Hansard– Tory MP after Tory MP stood up and agreed that animals are sentient. No MPs argued against animal sentience. It is just not true to say, as the Indy did, that “The Tories have rejected all scientists and voted that animals don’t feel pain”. Anyone who has seen the Environment Secretary with his Bichon Frise Snowy, or indeed the hedgehog above, knows these viral articles are fake news. This made up story, circulated by the Tories’ opponents for solely cynical reasons, is cutting through to animal lovers who think they can trust things they believe on the Independent website. This morning Michael Gove categorically committed the government to animal sentience once and for all. He couldn’t be clearer:

“This government will ensure that any necessary changes required to UK law are made in a rigorous and comprehensive way to ensure animal sentience is recognised after we leave the EU.”

Will that go as viral as the fake news BS that hoodwinked thousands in the last week?

https://order-order.com/2017/11/23/v...illion-people/

This is why I didn't respond the headlines,it is obviously rubbish,of course they haven't voted that animals don't feel pain,a lot of them will have animals themselves,just another slur to try and get people to dislike them,how desperate,makes me go against the opposition more.

[joeysteele]

Caroline Lucas's amendment states the wording animals have sentience.
She simply put forward the already set out EU act in the Lisbon treaty as to animal welfare,to be transferred to now UK domestic policy.

Simple enough.

Every other Party and MPs supported the amendment.
Only the Cons and DUP did not.
Since the wording of the amendment states animals have sentience,then the Cons voted against the amendment.

How does anyone who supposedly cares about all animal welfare not question that.

It was discussed on the Daily Politics today and even Doomwatcher Melanie Philips,a programme guest,after Zac Goldsmith's contribution couldn't get how they could not just support this amendment from Caroline Lucas.

I see we get digs at the opposition too on this, for crying out loud,it was the Green MP,Caroline Lucas proposing this,not the opposition.

Although it was supported by every other Party in the Commons except for the Cons and their extreme poodles the DUP.

The only probable good thing about this is this hateful deceitful govt.after the furore about it,wíll now be scrutinised closer as to them now saying sometime in the future,they intend to bring forward animal welfare plans.
Especially since as was said on the Daily politics,even Zac Goldsmith admitted the UKs own legislation from 2006 does not cover all animals.

Discussed on the Daily politics with a Geen party spokesman, Melanie Philips,Jo Coburn and Zac Goldsmith.
Not a Labour rep at all but don't let that stop those who hate Labour have a pop as usual and unfairly.

This was I repeat,a Green party amendment,not Labour's which all Parties in Westminster supported apart from the Cons and their sick DUP allies.

Had the Cons proposed this amendment and Labour MPs voted it down,there would have been cries for them to be hung drawn and quartered.

[Kizzy]

Why has this become a labour v tory thing?... It was a green party amendment :/

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

that's unfortunately the levels that Corbyn's supporters will go to. Disgusting

Sorry what... Are you too blinkered by your own ignorance to read that this is a mainstream media article discussing a commons vote on an amendment tabled by Caroline Lucas for the Green party?

Honestly you sound like a stunned mullet, corbyn blah blah... he's got whack all to do with the issue ....lordy! :/

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Why has this become a labour v tory thing?... It was a green party amendment :/

My point exactly Kizzy.
Nothing about daft newspapers from me,which I take hardly any notice of anyway.
This was Caroline Lucas and the Green party who wanted to ensure all animal rights were incorporated in legislation as to leaving the EU.

This was being omitted Caroline Lucas and the Green party submitted this amendment.
As I said earlier,despite the wording of the amendment clearly stating this amendment recognised animals have sentience so should have the fullest protection in law.

Only the Cons and DUP voted against it to stop it becoming part of the legislation.
Even with that wording.

Without this,we only at present have the UK 2006 legislation,that even Zac Goldsmith on the Daily politics today,admitted that 2006 UK legislation,does not cover all animals.

People can make of that what they will but I would have doubted as to really good intentions,any MP that voted against such an amendment.
As it is,it doesn't surprise me which parties all the MPs that did vote against it came from.

Only 2.
The Cons and DUP.

All other Parties and MPs had no issue at all as to supporting it.
It speaks volumes for me.
Animal welfare matters to me and any party that jeopardises that or drags it's heels on the issue.
Arouses only my suspicion as to not only why they are but why they would even want to do so.

On this amendment, the Green party amendment,not a Labour or opposition one,could have started a full concensus on the issue across Parliament.
The govt and DUP chose to not let that happen,even on an issue of animal rights.

Now the Cons say,only after the row that exploded, they are to bring forward plans for animal rights,they can't say what they are or when they will either.
One wonders without this row, we're they ever thinking of doing anything at all.

I'd more easily believe they were never originally going to add any further wider protection as to animal welfare to the limited already in place 2006 legislation.

[Kizzy]

Were they hell, and they are spitting fire that it's in the full glare of the public now, it's obvious whatever plans they had are for the moment thwarted otherwise why is Gove issuing statements desperate to create a smokescreen around the whole issue?

The whole thing stinks like rendered pigs innards!!