Keith Rich Posted August 4, 2011 Author Share Posted August 4, 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 It sounds incredible but the Tory minister Jim Paice who has recently been appointed as animal welfare minister is in favour of fox hunting! Not only that he has scrapped a great deal of animal protection. http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/NEWS/news_wildlife//2492// Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Fox-hunting? Now that is cruel and unwarranted for any normal purpose. But it's not relevant to this thread, is it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Rich Posted August 4, 2011 Author Share Posted August 4, 2011 Fox-hunting? Now that is cruel and unwarranted for any normal purpose. But it's not relevant to this thread, is it. The link I am trying to make is the so called minister of animal welfare Jim Paice: The footage obtained showed animals being kicked, beaten, goaded, improperly stunned and decapitated while still alive and – under the previous government – Defra brought charges against nine workers and four slaughterhouse operators. But with a change of government and Jim Paice’s appointment, new ‘legal advice’ suddenly suggested that the prosecutions would not be successful and all charges were dropped. See more here: http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/NEWS/news_wildlife//2492// Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libuse Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 The link I am trying to make is the so called minister of animal welfare Jim Paice: The footage obtained showed animals being kicked, beaten, goaded, improperly stunned and decapitated while still alive and – under the previous government – Defra brought charges against nine workers and four slaughterhouse operators. But with a change of government and Jim Paice’s appointment, new ‘legal advice’ suddenly suggested that the prosecutions would not be successful and all charges were dropped. See more here: http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/NEWS/news_wildlife//2492// Jim Paice is actually a working livestock farmer, which possibly also explains his stated preference for reducing farm inspections and reducing the number of vets at animal markets, in addition to his department's decision not to pursue prosecution in these slaughterhouse abuse cases. Quite an alarming choice as animal welfare minister Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 But no more so than a vegetarian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libuse Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 But no more so than a vegetarian. Yes I quite agree, the role needs objectivity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maryjane Posted August 4, 2011 Share Posted August 4, 2011 Some sort of legistlation needs to be brought in which makes the installation of CCTV mandatory in all abatoirs. there you have it, the answer, we should lobby for that surely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinnwok Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 My bold... The evidence can not be submitted in court due to the cameras being hidden I do not understand this, cameras that are hidden gather evidence all the time??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libuse Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 I do not understand this, cameras that are hidden gather evidence all the time??? Not cameras that were put in place by trespassing property - the Panorama/Castle Beck hospital case, for example, was secretly filmed, but by a person who the company had employed to work there, so there was no trespass taking place. Having said that, under the previous administration DEFRA were pursuing prosecution using Animal Aid's hidden camera evidence, its only since Jim Paice MP has become animal welfare minister that the cases have been dropped on fresh legal advice, so who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinnwok Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 Not cameras that were put in place by trespassing property - the Panorama/Castle Beck hospital case, for example, was secretly filmed, but by a person who the company had employed to work there, so there was no trespass taking place. Having said that, under the previous administration DEFRA were pursuing prosecution using Animal Aid's hidden camera evidence, its only since Jim Paice MP has become animal welfare minister that the cases have been dropped on fresh legal advice, so who knows? MP's probably have one eye on this tactic being used on them. Are they attempting to try the civil courts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.