[Crimson Dynamo]

there are plenty on here that dream of a large piece of meat sliding down their throats


and that is before they have dinner

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

there are plenty on here that dream of a large piece of meat sliding down their throats


and that is before they have dinner

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

it wasnt just you i thought of

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

it wasnt just you i thought of

Spill then LT. Who?

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

it wasnt just you i thought of

[jennyjuniper]

I'm a vegetarian, but I don't try to stop others eating meat. It's a personal choice. However I would ask that whenever possible buy eggs and meat raised on ecological farms. They still have to die, I realise that, but at least until then their lives are kinder and more enjoyable.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by jennyjuniper

I'm a vegetarian, but I don't try to stop others eating meat. It's a personal choice. However I would ask that whenever possible buy eggs and meat raised on ecological farms. They still have to die, I realise that, but at least until then their lives are kinder and more enjoyable.

See I think people should go with the taste angle more. The ethics angle will persuade a few to put their hands deeper into their pockets... But for most, "cheapness" wins out.

However, it is also true that organic beef raised in fields eating grass instead of eating grain in a barn tastes SO much better. Free range eggs taste a lot better than caged hen eggs too. People will pay more for better tasting food...

Unfortunately, I find free range chicken meat to be a bit scrawny / tough compared to its artificially bloated mass farmed counterpart. I prefer a nice blank miserable chook for something like a curry. Sorry chickens. Then again, my empathy for animals (which isn't huge to begin with) pretty much ends with mammals. I couldn't really give a stuff about "bird welfare"... A chicken has more DNA in common with a lettuce or a '03 Vauxhall Astra than it does with a human. That is a fact.

Although what really gets my goat, is when people start going into "insect rights". I mean come onnn...

[farhad]

Trying to ban halal meat is what exactly Hitler did to the jewish community, where he banned kosher. I can see the the exact similarities. Its been scientifically proven that the halal slaughter causes leastest pain to the animal, and imo its the most humane method. the guidline states that the knife should be very sharp and should be done away from the presences of other animals so it doesn't scare them.

[farhad]

Being stunned causes animals to suffer longer painful death and its not humane at all, if you want to attack the muslims then have the balls to attack the jewish kosher, both exactly the same principle. do your research done by german dietry institutions, in comparison to stunning and halal slaughter, hala slaughter the graph showed 0 pain signals, and in the slaughter we don't cut the whole head of, we cut the vessels of the windwipe,neck etc is cut and the pain signal responsible for pain is terminated. Animal does not die of pain, it dies of painless death.

[Dave600]

"Being stunned causes animals to suffer longer painful death and its not humane at all"

What nonsense, please provide evidence to back that up. Below is the CSIRO's findings which are the exact opposite to your claim. Essentially their findings found stunning removed all pain yet slaughter without stunning resulted in pain for periods between 10 and 30 seconds.

"However, EEG measurements indicated that animals in the unstunned slaughter group were likely to have experienced conscious pain up to 30 seconds post slaughter."

http://www.mla.com.au/Research-and-d...eef-Cattle/935

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by farhad

Being stunned causes animals to suffer longer painful death and its not humane at all, if you want to attack the muslims then have the balls to attack the jewish kosher, both exactly the same principle. do your research done by german dietry institutions, in comparison to stunning and halal slaughter, hala slaughter the graph showed 0 pain signals, and in the slaughter we don't cut the whole head of, we cut the vessels of the windwipe,neck etc is cut and the pain signal responsible for pain is terminated. Animal does not die of pain, it dies of painless death.

I was responding to your specific post. No Jewish person has posted on here on this specific subject and made the claims you have regarding how 'painless' and 'humane' Halal killing of animals is. If they had stated similar claims in respect of Kosher slaughter I would have responded to their post in exactly the same manner as I did to your post.

I have qualifications in Anatomy and Physiology and understand the central and peripheral nervous systems, which is why I totally refute your claims. There is also a wealth of scientific evidence which rebutts your claims, including the excellent link pasted by Dave 600 - reproduced below:

http://www.mla.com.au/Research-and-d...eef-Cattle/935

In addition, I reproduce below the results of another scientific research project into Religious Slaughter:

"Animals feel the pain of religious slaughter"

"Brain signals have shown that calves do appear to feel pain when slaughtered according to Jewish and Muslim religious law, strengthening the case for adapting the practices to make them more humane.

"I think our work is the best evidence yet that it's painful," says Craig Johnson, who led the study at Massey University in Palmerston North, New Zealand.

Johnson summarised his results last week in London when receiving an award from the UK Humane Slaughter Association. His team also showed that if the animal is concussed through stunning, signals corresponding to pain disappear.

The findings increase pressure on religious groups that practice slaughter without stunning to reconsider. "It provides further evidence, if it was needed, that slaughtering an animal without stunning it first is painful," says Christopher Wathes of the UK Farm Animal Welfare Council, which has long argued for the practice to end."

Finally, Farhad, I have the courage of my convictions and always have had, so you do not need to counsel me to "have" "balls" or question my bravery in any way.

I respond every single time to those who challenge me or who try to ridicule me - no matter if I stand alone and am outnumbered, because I wholly believe in what I say, and try to ensure - by painstaking research - that what what I say is supported by facts.

[farhad]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

I was responding to your specific post. No Jewish person has posted on here on this specific subject and made the claims you have regarding how 'painless' and 'humane' Halal killing of animals is. If they had stated similar claims in respect of Kosher slaughter I would have responded to their post in exactly the same manner as I did to your post.

I have qualifications in Anatomy and Physiology and understand the central and peripheral nervous systems, which is why I totally refute your claims. There is also a wealth of scientific evidence which rebutts your claims, including the excellent link pasted by Dave 600 - reproduced below:

http://www.mla.com.au/Research-and-d...eef-Cattle/935

In addition, I reproduce below the results of another scientific research project into Religious Slaughter:

"Animals feel the pain of religious slaughter"

"Brain signals have shown that calves do appear to feel pain when slaughtered according to Jewish and Muslim religious law, strengthening the case for adapting the practices to make them more humane.

"I think our work is the best evidence yet that it's painful," says Craig Johnson, who led the study at Massey University in Palmerston North, New Zealand.

Johnson summarised his results last week in London when receiving an award from the UK Humane Slaughter Association. His team also showed that if the animal is concussed through stunning, signals corresponding to pain disappear.

The findings increase pressure on religious groups that practice slaughter without stunning to reconsider. "It provides further evidence, if it was needed, that slaughtering an animal without stunning it first is painful," says Christopher Wathes of the UK Farm Animal Welfare Council, which has long argued for the practice to end."

Finally, Farhad, I have the courage of my convictions and always have had, so you do not need to counsel me to "have" "balls" or question my bravery in any way.

I respond every single time to those who challenge me or who try to ridicule me - no matter if I stand alone and am outnumbered, because I wholly believe in what I say, and try to ensure - by painstaking research - that what what I say is supported by facts.

The link does not exist, and even if they did research which doesn't provide its study method, if ofcourse carried out the wrong way, it will feel pain, hence it should be done by the professional butchers and done in accordance with the appropriate steps and guideline. The study that was carried out was done with the measurement of a machinal graph, and with appropriate action, it gave a sound result. Before posting your reference, need to know the background of these personals. Also they did not provide how they came to that conclusion, how did they detect that animals felts pain, nothing conclusive to show how it detected pain. Also why use anaesthetic?

At long last??!!....Umpteen studies prove that ritual slaughter is the most humane way vs 1.. ONE.. that says otherwise??!! Way to stand up for science Manny Goldstein

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by farhad

The link does not exist, and even if they did research which doesn't provide its study method, if ofcourse carried out the wrong way, it will feel pain, hence it should be done by the professional butchers and done in accordance with the appropriate steps and guideline. The study that was carried out was done with the measurement of a machinal graph, and with appropriate action, it gave a sound result. Before posting your reference, need to know the background of these personals. Also they did not provide how they came to that conclusion, how did they detect that animals felts pain, nothing conclusive to show how it detected pain. Also why use anaesthetic?

At long last??!!....Umpteen studies prove that ritual slaughter is the most humane way vs 1.. ONE.. that says otherwise??!! Way to stand up for science Manny Goldstein

This is the whole problem with your perception of 'Truth' and 'Fact' Farhad; you are extremely selective.

Truth is truth and Fact is fact, but where a Truth or a Fact dovetails into your beliefs you accept them, and where they oppose your beliefs, you dismiss and reject them.

There is more scientific evidence that stunning animals prior to slaughtering them is a far more reliable pain-free method than non-stunning ritualistic methods, but you vehemently refuse to even examine such evidence because it 'flies in the face' of what you have been taught is the truth.

I fear that your stance is through blinkered obstinacy, whereas mine is the 'result' of genuine research and deep contemplation on a mind which was absolutely 'open' to begin with.

Although I rely on extensive research and my own intelligence when forming my opinion Farhad, I am always prepared to change that opinion if new information surfaces, and I have done so a few times,though not often.

Anyone who is so rigid in their opinion that they refuse to modify it - even in in the face of overwhelming evidence which proves such an opinion to be wrong - do not make ideal parties to any type of compromise -- in any area.

As for: "the link does not work" - just copy and paste it into Google.

To close, I will reproduce an article on this very subject relating to a news report of undercover filming inside an Halal Slaughterhouse in Thirsk:

"Inside the halal house of horrors:


Sickening footage shows 'evil' abattoir staff 'taunting sheep before hacking them to pieces'

Slaughtermen caught on camera 'hacking and sawing' at animals' throats

Sheep filmed being kicked, with one worker standing on an animal's neck

Staff laughed as a sheep bled to death with spectacles painted on its face

'Horrifying abuse' captured by animal rights campaigners at halal abattoir

One worker has been sacked and another three have been suspended

The Food Standards Agency has launched an urgent investigation

RSCPA and British Veterinary Association condemn 'shocking' footage

100,000-strong BVA petition means slaughter will be debated in Commons

A worker at a halal abattoir has been sacked and three others suspended after being filmed breaking strict rules on slaughtering sheep.

The men could face prosecution for the ‘horrifying yet routine abuse’ captured by animal rights campaigners using hidden cameras.

Slaughtermen at the Bowood Lamb abattoir in Thirsk, North Yorkshire, are seen ‘hacking and sawing’ at animals’ throats in apparent contravention of Islamic practice.

The RSPCA slammed the 'absolutely shocking' footage amid renewed calls to ban halal slaughter, which is opposed by the British Veterinary Association and 100,000 people in an online petition".

[farhad]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

This is the whole problem with your perception of 'Truth' and 'Fact' Farhad; you are extremely selective.

Truth is truth and Fact is fact, but where a Truth or a Fact dovetails into your beliefs you accept them, and where they oppose your beliefs, you dismiss and reject them.

There is more scientific evidence that stunning animals prior to slaughtering them is a far more reliable pain-free method than non-stunning ritualistic methods, but you vehemently refuse to even examine such evidence because it 'flies in the face' of what you have been taught is the truth.

I fear that your stance is through blinkered obstinacy, whereas mine is the 'result' of genuine research and deep contemplation on a mind which was absolutely 'open' to begin with.

Although I rely on extensive research and my own intelligence when forming my opinion Farhad, I am always prepared to change that opinion if new information surfaces, and I have done so a few times,though not often.

Anyone who is so rigid in their opinion that they refuse to modify it - even in in the face of overwhelming evidence which proves such an opinion to be wrong - do not make ideal parties to any type of compromise -- in any area.

As for: "the link does not work" - just copy and paste it into Google.

To close, I will reproduce an article on this very subject relating to a news report of undercover filming inside an Halal Slaughterhouse in Thirsk:

"Inside the halal house of horrors:


Sickening footage shows 'evil' abattoir staff 'taunting sheep before hacking them to pieces'

Slaughtermen caught on camera 'hacking and sawing' at animals' throats

Sheep filmed being kicked, with one worker standing on an animal's neck

Staff laughed as a sheep bled to death with spectacles painted on its face

'Horrifying abuse' captured by animal rights campaigners at halal abattoir

One worker has been sacked and another three have been suspended

The Food Standards Agency has launched an urgent investigation

RSCPA and British Veterinary Association condemn 'shocking' footage

100,000-strong BVA petition means slaughter will be debated in Commons

A worker at a halal abattoir has been sacked and three others suspended after being filmed breaking strict rules on slaughtering sheep.

The men could face prosecution for the ‘horrifying yet routine abuse’ captured by animal rights campaigners using hidden cameras.

Slaughtermen at the Bowood Lamb abattoir in Thirsk, North Yorkshire, are seen ‘hacking and sawing’ at animals’ throats in apparent contravention of Islamic practice.

The RSPCA slammed the 'absolutely shocking' footage amid renewed calls to ban halal slaughter, which is opposed by the British Veterinary Association and 100,000 people in an online petition".

As pointed out to you and another poster that the supposed conclusive research carried out is rather obscure, and it doesn't the method of their study and how they detected the pain. The research previously I mentioned was done by a leading scientists in that field, using electroencephalogram to observe how the brain functions after the slaughter. Many of notable scientist since 1927 have done their investigation into this topic and all of them seem to agree with one another, and suddenly this obscure Australian research says otherwise.

[Johnnyuk123]

A spokesperson for the Department for the Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) said: “The government has no intention of banning religious slaughter. The government would prefer animals to be stunned before slaughter, but we respect the rights of Jewish and Muslim communities to eat meat in accordance with their beliefs.”

I would agree with this but ONLY if my rights to purchase none halal meat were respected by both communities which sadly it is not.

[Kizzy]

Supermarkets provide both so where's the beef?... ( see what I did there?)

[Kizzy]

No method is foolproof.


'Animals may suffer when stunning procedures fail. This
Regulation should therefore provide for appropriate
back-up stunning equipment to be available to
minimise pain, distress or suffering to the animals.'

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...99_2009_en.pdf

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

No method is foolproof.


'Animals may suffer when stunning procedures fail. This
Regulation should therefore provide for appropriate
back-up stunning equipment to be available to
minimise pain, distress or suffering to the animals.'

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...99_2009_en.pdf

I know the real reason why you have posted the above, but what is your point? Are you claiming that because 'stunning' sometimes fails, that it justifies animals being slaughtered without stunning them?

A bit like saying that anesthesia has been known to sometimes fail so because it is not 'foolproof' , then any backstreet operations where rogue surgeons remove limbs from patients without any type of pain killers are justified.

It is better to support a well-intentioned system that seeks to protect animals about to be slaughtered from pain, than to try to use the occasional failure of such a system to defend systems without any protection at all. In my opinion.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

I know the real reason why you have posted the above, but what is your point? Are you claiming that because 'stunning' sometimes fails, that it justifies animals being slaughtered without stunning them?

A bit like saying that anesthesia has been known to sometimes fail so because it is not 'foolproof' , then any backstreet operations where rogue surgeons remove limbs from patients without any type of pain killers are justified.

It is better to support a well-intentioned system that seeks to protect animals about to be slaughtered from pain, than to try to use the occasional failure of such a system to defend systems without any protection at all. In my opinion.

I'll tell you the real reason... I posted on page one that I felt it was unethical, I have been looking for some up to date relevant information relating specifically to the UK that specifies governmental guidelines to back up my view.
I found it and posted it, there is no such thing as a backstreet abattoir as that would be illegal there already are protections in place for all methods of slaughter.
But as seen the stunning method has as many if not more issues attached, even considering there are laws to protect animal welfare.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I'll tell you the real reason... I posted on page one that I felt it was unethical, I have been looking for some up to date relevant information relating specifically to the UK that specifies governmental guidelines to back up my view.
I found it and posted it, there is no such thing as a backstreet abattoir as that would be illegal there already are protections in place for all methods of slaughter.
But as seen the stunning method has as many if not more issues attached, even considering there are laws to protect animal welfare.

I was too busy yesterday to respond to your post, and I was preparing to do so this morning, when on the news came a report of undercover filming inside an Halal Slaughterhouse in Thirsk. I'll let a related article about it expound:

"Inside the halal house of horrors:


Sickening footage shows 'evil' abattoir staff 'taunting sheep before hacking them to pieces'

Slaughtermen caught on camera 'hacking and sawing' at animals' throats

Sheep filmed being kicked, with one worker standing on an animal's neck

Staff laughed as a sheep bled to death with spectacles painted on its face

'Horrifying abuse' captured by animal rights campaigners at halal abattoir

One worker has been sacked and another three have been suspended

The Food Standards Agency has launched an urgent investigation

RSCPA and British Veterinary Association condemn 'shocking' footage

100,000-strong BVA petition means slaughter will be debated in Commons

A worker at a halal abattoir has been sacked and three others suspended after being filmed breaking strict rules on slaughtering sheep.

The men could face prosecution for the ‘horrifying yet routine abuse’ captured by animal rights campaigners using hidden cameras.

Slaughtermen at the Bowood Lamb abattoir in Thirsk, North Yorkshire, are seen ‘hacking and sawing’ at animals’ throats in apparent contravention of Islamic practice.

The RSPCA slammed the 'absolutely shocking' footage amid renewed calls to ban halal slaughter, which is opposed by the British Veterinary Association and 100,000 people in an online petition".

When I was at school, as part of our English studies, we had 'Comprehension', where we had to read diverse types of literature - both fact and fiction - and then, in an 'exam' type setting, we had to write essays on what we had read, without the benefit of the source material. This was to prove that not only had we actually read what we were supposed to have read, but also that we fully understood what we had read.

I recommend such a practice to save 'egg on face'.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

I was too busy yesterday to respond to your post, and I was preparing to do so this morning, when on the news came a report of undercover filming inside an Halal Slaughterhouse in Thirsk. I'll let a related article about it expound:

"Inside the halal house of horrors:


Sickening footage shows 'evil' abattoir staff 'taunting sheep before hacking them to pieces'

Slaughtermen caught on camera 'hacking and sawing' at animals' throats

Sheep filmed being kicked, with one worker standing on an animal's neck

Staff laughed as a sheep bled to death with spectacles painted on its face

'Horrifying abuse' captured by animal rights campaigners at halal abattoir

One worker has been sacked and another three have been suspended

The Food Standards Agency has launched an urgent investigation

RSCPA and British Veterinary Association condemn 'shocking' footage

100,000-strong BVA petition means slaughter will be debated in Commons

A worker at a halal abattoir has been sacked and three others suspended after being filmed breaking strict rules on slaughtering sheep.

The men could face prosecution for the ‘horrifying yet routine abuse’ captured by animal rights campaigners using hidden cameras.

Slaughtermen at the Bowood Lamb abattoir in Thirsk, North Yorkshire, are seen ‘hacking and sawing’ at animals’ throats in apparent contravention of Islamic practice.

The RSPCA slammed the 'absolutely shocking' footage amid renewed calls to ban halal slaughter, which is opposed by the British Veterinary Association and 100,000 people in an online petition".

When I was at school, as part of our English studies, we had 'Comprehension', where we had to read diverse types of literature - both fact and fiction - and then, in an 'exam' type setting, we had to write essays on what we had read, without the benefit of the source material. This was to prove that not only had we actually read what we were supposed to have read, but also that we fully understood what we had read.

I recommend such a practice to save 'egg on face'.

The information you provided in your post was to some obscure Australian study and another a broken link.
I provided actual governmental UK guidelines... I fail to see how you could take issue with those.

I have seen the news item on the Thirsk abattoir, it is shocking and it shows that there is indeed a need to closely monitor who, how and where animals are slaughtered, however the method is not the issue here but the manner in which it was carried out which is quite rightly considered gross abuse of animals.

When I was at school, as part of our English studies, we had 'Comprehension', where we had to read diverse types of literature - both fact and fiction - and then, in an 'exam' type setting, we had to write essays on what we had read, without the benefit of the source material. This was to prove that not only had we actually read what we were supposed to have read, but also that we fully understood what we had read.

I recommend such a practice to save 'egg on face'.

What exactly are you trying to say here?... I'm a little confused as to the relevance.
I have English Language and Literature at GCSE level, I hope this qualifies me to reply to your posts.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

I was too busy yesterday to respond to your post, and I was preparing to do so this morning, when on the news came a report of undercover filming inside an Halal Slaughterhouse in Thirsk. I'll let a related article about it expound:

"Inside the halal house of horrors:


Sickening footage shows 'evil' abattoir staff 'taunting sheep before hacking them to pieces'

Slaughtermen caught on camera 'hacking and sawing' at animals' throats

Sheep filmed being kicked, with one worker standing on an animal's neck

Staff laughed as a sheep bled to death with spectacles painted on its face

'Horrifying abuse' captured by animal rights campaigners at halal abattoir

One worker has been sacked and another three have been suspended

The Food Standards Agency has launched an urgent investigation

RSCPA and British Veterinary Association condemn 'shocking' footage

100,000-strong BVA petition means slaughter will be debated in Commons

A worker at a halal abattoir has been sacked and three others suspended after being filmed breaking strict rules on slaughtering sheep.

The men could face prosecution for the ‘horrifying yet routine abuse’ captured by animal rights campaigners using hidden cameras.

Slaughtermen at the Bowood Lamb abattoir in Thirsk, North Yorkshire, are seen ‘hacking and sawing’ at animals’ throats in apparent contravention of Islamic practice.

The RSPCA slammed the 'absolutely shocking' footage amid renewed calls to ban halal slaughter, which is opposed by the British Veterinary Association and 100,000 people in an online petition".

When I was at school, as part of our English studies, we had 'Comprehension', where we had to read diverse types of literature - both fact and fiction - and then, in an 'exam' type setting, we had to write essays on what we had read, without the benefit of the source material. This was to prove that not only had we actually read what we were supposed to have read, but also that we fully understood what we had read.

I recommend such a practice to save 'egg on face'.

Put me right off my Kebab.

[JoshBB]

kirklancaster,

The simple truth is that a huge majority of the people who oppose halal are not thinking in a way to 'care for animals', but to bash muslims yet again. If it was any other religion the outrage would not be there.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

kirklancaster,

The simple truth is that a huge majority of the people who oppose halal are not thinking in a way to 'care for animals', but to bash muslims yet again. If it was any other religion the outrage would not be there.

Animal lovers are animal lovers and mostly apolitical Josh, so really this issue is about unnecessary, and even deliberate, cruelty to defenseless animals and not about "Muslim' bashing". The protest is against all ritualistic slaughtering of animals - Halhal or Kosher, and the demands of the protesters are for the stunning of animals prior to slaughtering to be made legally compulsorily not for the banning of ritualistic slaughter per se.

The reason that Halhal - and not Kosher - is predominant in posts on here regarding this issue, is because Farhad stated the Muslim point of view in defense of Halhal, whereas no Jewish member has brought the Judaic point of view into the thread.

There is a vast difference between legitimate comment and 'Muslim bashing' and you must learn to appreciate that difference.

[smudgie]

The coverage on the news of the atrocity at Thirsk had me in tears this lunchtime.
I love Thirsk, I love the sheep in the fields around Thirsk, poor James Herriot wil be turning in his grave.
Such cruelty, those responsible should be jailed, never mnd them losing their licenses.