Parliament defies government, bans wild animals in circuses

Killing them with the least amount of suffering and/or pain do you mean?

Either way the end result is still the same.

What is more atrocious is caged hens, is that humane? Locking up "perfectly living" animals to draw their eggs. Or using a chemical substance (citation needed) on cows to keep them producing milk and having machines to extract that milk?

But I guess we can all agree that there is a difference in opinion... :p
 
LeJosh said:
Killing them with the least amount of suffering and/or pain do you mean?

Either way the end result is still the same.

What is more atrocious is caged hens, is that humane? Locking up "perfectly living" animals to draw their eggs. Or using a chemical substance (citation needed) on cows to keep them producing milk and having machines to extract that milk?

But I guess we can all agree that there is a difference in opinion... :p
Click to expand...

No that isn't acceptable, I don't buy battery hen eggs. As a consumer you can only do so much in trying to improve the situation.
 
IIDeathCubeKII said:
You must be sadistic if you think it's acceptable to bury anything alive. I'd like to see it done to you the next time you pick up an STD
Click to expand...

It's not acceptable to bury 1.4 million pigs alive, it's also not acceptable to generalise an entire nation of people based on a misguided government decision. Pretty much every nation in the world does incredibly cruel, barbaric things to animals and there's no denying it, it doesn't mean that I (nor you) condone it.
 
LeJosh said:
What is more atrocious is caged hens, is that humane? Locking up "perfectly living" animals to draw their eggs.
Click to expand...

Yes, I quite agree on that point - I think it seems totally hypocritical to decry these 'barbaric' displays which are apparently against animal rights while at the same time continue to allow battery farming hens to be common practice. Just another elephant in the room being ignored.

Anyway, I would suggest that entertaining hundreds of people is not a bad use for an animal - the ethical problems come when the animals 'rights' become infringed or there is cruelty. What this needs is some form of better regulation (specialist inspectors or just portable CCTV cameras set up by police to monitor events?), which would have to be paid for somehow - maybe by having an extra charge from councils for such events (which might result in some circuses shutting down, but presumably the best ones would be able to afford the extra expense).
 
good to see a backbencher stand up to the whips, shame the party will end his career now

who knew that that Tories could be bought off by circus ******
 
How will this be implemented? At what point does a wild animal become tame, or does it have to be born. Into captivity and then everything's ok?
 
If you read the article it says that wild animals have not been banned, and legally this is meaningless, like so much other bureaucracy the government has. It will no doubt be ignored by the government.
 
Energize said:
If you read the article it says that wild animals have not been banned, and legally this is meaningless, like so much other bureaucracy the government has. It will no doubt be ignored by the government.
Click to expand...

I know that but no 10 said they will acknowledge the house. Meaning it will lost certainly come law. However if I read t he bottom.

Only a handful of circuses in England keep wild animals which includes any non-domestic species, such as tigers, zebras and camels.
Click to expand...

To me that definition makes no sense at all. Camels have been used for thousands of. Years by human. Also why is there a lack of reason. For the ban, why do they want it and what would such a ban solve. This is reminiscent of labour laws.
 
Energize said:
Since when were camels wild animals? They are to the east at horses are to the west.
Click to expand...

Because their definition of wild is. Anything non uk domesticated. Which makes this vote retarded.
Why are people so happy about this vote? Or are people assuming it means something else.
Now. A ban on taking wild animals in to captivity for entertainment, now that would be sensible or at least strictly controlled.
 
LeJosh said:
And didn't the UK have to cull off a lot of animals due to foot and mouth too?

It's a shame that it happened but it's what had to happen.
Click to expand...

to be fair we get army marksmen in to shoot hem in the head before we bury or burn them.
 
Morbius said:
It's nice to see a politician that has the courage of their convictions and actually fights for what they believe in.
Click to expand...

This kind of. An mp should not be voting on anything with their opinion. It should be based on the people they represent, even if that means voting against their own personal opinion. But I feel they all vote on what they believe and don't even attempt to engage their area properly.

But on the other hand party whipping is disgusting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom