aliceBB Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 I'd have expected so, too; cf speeding cameras (acceptable evidence in court). But speeding cameras are not hidden, you can and usually do know where they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Apparently the current government are reluctant to bring in that legislation, however Animal Aid have been campaigning vociferously and most of the major supermarkets have agreed to use only slaughterhouses with independently monitored CCTV - http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/NEWS/news_slaughter/ALL/2498// . That would be a start. If they have nothing to hide they shouldn't object to cameras. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 But speeding cameras are not hidden, you can and usually do know where they are. Sometimes, yes. These involve no element of trespass, of course, whereas the abattoir cameras... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Sometimes, yes. These involve no element of trespass, of course, whereas the abattoir cameras... No, always. Speed cameras even ones in mobile units must be signed. And the point about trespass is a different one. You can't say evidence from hidden cameras is OK as long as the cameraman didnt trespass to install the equipment but its not if he did. Its either ok or its not ok, surely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Apparently the current government are reluctant to bring in that legislation, however Animal Aid have been campaigning vociferously and most of the major supermarkets have agreed to use only slaughterhouses with independently monitored CCTV - http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/NEWS/news_slaughter/ALL/2498// Well no surprise that the govt are reluctant to bring in legistlation, it might put their big business buddies noses out of joint. I think supermarkets should also insist that however the animals are killed, they should be stunned first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libuse Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Well no surprise that the govt are reluctant to bring in legistlation, it might put their big business buddies noses out of joint. I think supermarkets should also insist that however the animals are killed, they should be stunned first. Things have gone rapidly downhill since farmer and pro-hunting MP Jim Paice has become animal welfare minister. Up until this point I understand that DEFRA were pursuing prosecutions in other cases where Animal Aid had obtained footage via trespass, but following the change of govt the cases were dropped on the basis of legal advice stating that footage obtained by trespass wouldn't secure prosecution. Possibly a coincidence but given the other changes that have been to the detriment of animal welfare that Paice has overseen, I'm not sure. I don't want to derail this thread by talking about pre-stunning, but this article is interesting; http://newhumanist.org.uk/2382/there-will-be-blood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Rich Posted August 3, 2011 Author Share Posted August 3, 2011 Well, maybe the Company does have grounds to sue for trespass. That'd be perfectly valid. I suppose thats true but it shows what kind of people they are at Cheale Meats. If I were in charge of the company I would be thanking Animal Aid for bringing this to my attention so I could do something about it. But perhaps managment knew all about it anyway but turned a blind eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Rich Posted August 3, 2011 Author Share Posted August 3, 2011 Things have gone rapidly downhill since farmer and pro-hunting MP Jim Paice has become animal welfare minister. Up until this point I understand that DEFRA were pursuing prosecutions in other cases where Animal Aid had obtained footage via trespass, but following the change of govt the cases were dropped on the basis of legal advice stating that footage obtained by trespass wouldn't secure prosecution. Possibly a coincidence but given the other changes that have been to the detriment of animal welfare that Paice has overseen, I'm not sure. I don't want to derail this thread by talking about pre-stunning, but this article is interesting; http://newhumanist.org.uk/2382/there-will-be-blood Just done some research on Jim Paice and found this? http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/NEWS/news_wildlife//2492// Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 The worst cruelty is electrocution stunning, a very inhumane slaughter method. The article mentions that workers often failed to stun the animals correctly, leaving them screaming in pain. Others were pushed and prodded with electric rods. The most humane slaughter method is Shechita, using an unusually sharp knife. Evidence? Assume that you suffer a paper-cut from the edge of the A4 paper that you're going to feed into your photocopier. It's so sharp that you don't even know that you've been cut- until you see the blood on the sheet. Shechita knives are far sharper than even that. This sounds like religious dogma, there is no pain-free, fear-free way to slaughter an animal for food. What do you think happens once the very sharp knife has slit their throat? Their windpipe being cut they cannot breathe and they drown in their own blood. With luck they will lose consciousness first but don't kid yourself that it is any way 'humane'. The most humane thing to do is not eat meat. Plus the fear animals experience just before slaughter floods their bodies with large amounts of adrenaline (similar in its effects to cholesterol) which remains in them once dead, it then is ingested by humans (along with all the antibiotics the animal was given when alive). Makes meat even less of a healthy option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted August 3, 2011 Share Posted August 3, 2011 Wrong. The instant that the jugular is severed, the animal loses sentience and falls into immediate unconsciousness. It experiences none of the anthropomorphic projections that you imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.