Toby Foster and Harrow Halal meat

[BritPat]

slow? the prescribed method of cut is to allow swift loss of consciousness, and swift exsanguination, as pointed out umpteen times, grahame. FGS, keep up with the game, and don't get bogged down and blinded by your "Islam is dreadful! " gubbins...

 

I'm sure Islam is great (for muslims) there are many Islamic states where muslims can carry out their practices to their hearts content.

 

The UK is not such a state therein lies the difference.

[Dick]

In English slaughterhouses the animal is rendered unconscious instantly by electric shock.

It's throat is then cut and it is bled to death. But it is completely unconscious and unaware of pain while being bled.

It is various religious forms of slaughter that forbid the animal to be unconscious while bleeding to death that is so cruel.

[Plain Talker]

In English slaughterhouses the animal is rendered unconscious instantly by electric shock.

It's throat is then cut and it is bled to death. But it is completely unconscious and unaware of pain while being bled.

It is various religious forms of slaughter that forbid the animal to be unconscious while bleeding to death that is so cruel.

 

which forms are they dick?

[boyfriday]

Instantaneous death is more humane than a lingering concious death.

 

Muslims want a slow death to keep the heart pumping.

 

You're still missing the point, stunning is supposed to render the animal unconscious whether it's a halal or non halal.

 

With the captive bolt stun, the animal is bled to death until it's dead, so materially there's little difference apart from the Muslims wanting to say some religious verse as it's done, and them preferring electrocution rather than the bolt to the head.

 

Here's an extract from the RSPCA website:

 

''Captive bolt stunning is used on cattle, sheep and some pigs. A gun fires a metal bolt into the brain of the animal. The bolt does not kill the animal (stop the heart) but, if used correctly, causes the animal to lose consciousness immediately. ''

 

http://www.rspca.org.uk/allaboutanimals/farm/slaughter/factfile

[boyfriday]

I'm sure Islam is great (for muslims) there are many Islamic states where muslims can carry out their practices to their hearts content.

 

The UK is not such a state therein lies the difference.

 

Guess your not a lover of Chicken Bhuna, BP?

[English]

I'm sure Islam is great (for muslims) there are many Islamic states where muslims can carry out their practices to their hearts content.

 

The UK is not such a state therein lies the difference.

 

What practises are muslims unable to carry out in the UK?

[BritPat]

Guess your not a lover of Chicken Bhuna, BP?

 

I've never met her ! her brothers would probably kill both of us in an honour killing if I admitted to such a thing.

[Grahame]

Grahame post #382 is awaiting your response

 

I replied in #376. You asked the same question twice.

[BritPat]

What practises are muslims unable to carry out in the UK?

 

Stoning unfaithful wives to death ?

[Grahame]

You're still missing the point, stunning is supposed to render the animal unconscious whether it's a halal or non halal.

 

With the captive bolt stun, the animal is bled to death until it's dead, so materially there's little difference apart from the Muslims wanting to say some religious verse as it's done, and them preferring electrocution rather than the bolt to the head.

 

Here's an extract from the RSPCA website:

 

''Captive bolt stunning is used on cattle, sheep and some pigs. A gun fires a metal bolt into the brain of the animal. The bolt does not kill the animal (stop the heart) but, if used correctly, causes the animal to lose consciousness immediately. ''

 

http://www.rspca.org.uk/allaboutanimals/farm/slaughter/factfile

 

Which is better, if we can say that in this context, for the animal which as I keep saying should be your first concern.

 

So you agree then that animals should be stunned?