[Mitchell]

The thought of a hedgehog on a zebra crossing has absolutely made my day.

[Livia]

I think that animal welfare standard in the UK are FAR above the majority of EU countries. I'm baffled at this thinking that being in the EU has made us all fluffy and loving.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

I think that animal welfare standard in the UK are FAR above the majority of EU countries. I'm baffled at this thinking that being in the EU has made us all fluffy and loving.

Who mentioned the EU?... What has the EU to do with the issue here and the vote in OUR parliament on animal sentience.
Don't try to muddy the waters by pointing at other parts of the world and their positions on animal welfare but focus on ours, that is the topic of the thread.
What are your thoughts on the outcome of the vote?

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Who mentioned the EU?... What has the EU to do with the issue here and the vote in OUR parliament on animal sentience.
Don't try to muddy the waters by pointing at other parts of the world and their positions on animal welfare but focus on ours, that is the topic of the thread.
What are your thoughts on the outcome of the vote?

I agree. I think Livias point was that the majority of animal welfare regulations before now were mostly EU laws. But I don't think that's directly relevant. This is more about what is happening, than what isn't happening.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Didn't think that brexit was being used to remove rights and protections?...Think again

'MPs have voted to reject the inclusion of animal sentience – the admission that animals feel emotion and pain – into the EU Withdrawal Bill.

The move has been criticised by animal rights activists, who say the vote undermines environment secretary Michael Gove’s pledge to prioritise animal rights during Brexit.

The majority of animal welfare legislation comes from the EU. The UK Government is tasked with adopting EU laws directly after March 2019 but has dismissed animal sentience.'

This will impact in all areas of animal welfare, can people still be convicted of animal cruelty? Could it be used to bring back fox hunting or badger baiting?
Will regulations on animal slaughter be relaxed?

My feeling also is that standards in farming will suffer with more animals kept in smaller spaced and potentially battery fed like chickens.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a8064676.html

Originally Posted by Livia

I think that animal welfare standard in the UK are FAR above the majority of EU countries. I'm baffled at this thinking that being in the EU has made us all fluffy and loving.

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Who mentioned the EU?... What has the EU to do with the issue here and the vote in OUR parliament on animal sentience.
Don't try to muddy the waters by pointing at other parts of the world and their positions on animal welfare but focus on ours, that is the topic of the thread.
What are your thoughts on the outcome of the vote?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by smudgie

The decision on sentience wasn't taken in the EU, that was the meaning behind that statement Smudgie. My post was in relation to the decision taken in our parliament only.

There is as always the challenge from Livia that we have better protections than anywhere, but where are they? Where is the burden of proof that our animal rights protections are better? Of course imagining for a second they are will they still be when the issue of animal sentience is applied to preexisting legislation? Will animals be afforded the same protections due to the fact it has been asserted they have no capacity for emotion?

I'm sorry I confused you but again I'm conscious of the conversation being diverted into an EU bashing exercise rather than a discussion on how our independence is being mapped.
We are a nation of animal lovers, does this ruling speak for us and what will it mean for the future of animal welfare in England?

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

The decision on sentience wasn't taken in the EU, that was the meaning behind that statement Smudgie. My post was in relation to the decision taken in our parliament only.

There is as always the challenge from Livia that we have better protections than anywhere, but where are they? Where is the burden of proof that our animal rights protections are better? Of course imagining for a second they are will they still be when the issue of animal sentience is applied to preexisting legislation? Will animals be afforded the same protections due to the fact it has been asserted they have no capacity for emotion?

I'm sorry I confused you but again I'm conscious of the conversation being diverted into an EU bashing exercise rather than a discussion on how our independence is being mapped.
We are a nation of animal lovers, does this ruling speak for us and what will it mean for the future of animal welfare in England?

Ah right.
Just that the EU was mentioned in the post.
I can actually see where Livia is coming from, in as much as we do have decent animal welfare here, better than some EU countries.
I know people bring up the foxhunting, but I really can't see a bill to overturn it ever getting through parliament.

[Withano]

https://www.indy100.com/article/anim...y-tory-8068691

List of mp's who voted this through. My local guys on here also it's only tories, dups, and 2 independents on this list.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Withano

https://www.indy100.com/article/anim...y-tory-8068691

List of mp's who voted this through. My local guys on here also it's only tories, dups, and 2 independents on this list.

Hardly surprising to most I think. Not because labour ministers care more about the animals but because they are trying to pretend they care - for obvious reasons. Not rocket science.

Got to be seen to be doing the right thing after all. Doesn’t wash with me. Caring about animals is not political. It just gets used by those with an agenda.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Hardly surprising to most I think. Not because labour ministers care more about the animals but because they are trying to pretend they care - for obvious reasons. Not rocket science.

Got to be seen to be doing the right thing after all. Doesn’t wash with me. Caring about animals is not political. It just gets used by those with an agenda.

What an odd way to defend tories / slander labour.

Bloody Labour doing the right thing I dont believe you care therefore youre just as bad

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Hardly surprising to most I think. Not because labour ministers care more about the animals but because they are trying to pretend they care - for obvious reasons. Not rocket science.

Got to be seen to be doing the right thing after all. Doesn’t wash with me. Caring about animals is not political. It just gets used by those with an agenda.

So conservative MPs just don't care that we know they don't care?
We knew that long before this vote.

Won't this outcome be used by those with an agenda then? It'll be back to animal testing in labs or cosmetics as their only dumb animals with no feelings.

Spoiler:

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

So conservative MPs just don't care that we know they don't care?
We knew that long before this vote.

Won't this outcome be used by those with an agenda then? It'll be back to animal testing in labs or cosmetics as their only dumb animals with no feelings.

Spoiler:

And what a coincidence that not a single labour minister voted for it - because they are all such lovely caring individuals. Yep believe that! Care more about keeping their jobs more like.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

And what a coincidence that not a single labour minister voted for it - because they are all such lovely caring individuals. Yep believe that! Care more about keeping their jobs more like.

And the conservatives don't care about keeping them?... Your post makes no sense brillo, who is gong to get rid of them based on the outcome of a vote?

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Withano

https://www.indy100.com/article/anim...y-tory-8068691

List of mp's who voted this through. My local guys on here also it's only tories, dups, and 2 independents on this list.

Hardly a surprise from the people who would have legalised again hunting with hounds,had they won a larger majority in June.
Sickening to see the extreme DUP helping them win the day too.

[Kizzy]

True, there must be a really sensible, reasonable reason that I've somehow overlooked with regard to this issue.

[In the Drunk Tank]

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/

[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?

[In the Drunk Tank]

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.

[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

[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.

[In the Drunk Tank]

Even the Mirror has attacked the Independent story:

'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

[user104658]

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??

[Candy Annie Cane]

Bloody media whipping up a storm based not in true facts....shocker

[bots]

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

[Candy Annie Cane]

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