cat in bin woman gets police protection?!

fabs said:
Jeez, you don't need to have a degree in animal psychology to know that a cat will be traumatised if trapped in a bin for 15 hours.

See my answer above. If you trap any being, they will be traumatised. It ain't rocket science.
Click to expand...

So the best way to help the cat get over such traumatisation is to parade it around in front of whichever newscrew rolls up on your doorstep and points a camera at it? The cat looked truly traumatised in all the pics and video I have seen!! Like I siad before, should never have happened but the incident has been blown out of all proportion by the media and the cat owners milking their few moments of 'fame'.
 
ding76uk said:
Again people should check facts, the RSPCA were the ones who helped expose the horrors of factory farming, it wasn't Jamie and Hugh as the papers and their PR people have you believe. The RSPCA cannot do anything as they have to stick to the law which allows the practice to go on. Not done anything? They launched a campaign back in 2008 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jan/02/ethicalliving.animalwelfare

Sorry Garry but to drag the reputation of the RSPCA into this is disgusting, and I also feel it weird that you care more about an animal bread for food than an animal that is a beloved family pet.

Factory farming is a product of the supermarket age. Unless laws are passed or the supermarkets commit to it (not going to happen) then factory farming is here to stay.

I find it funny that us clearly state she should be prosecuted for animal cruelty are put as a "Mob" where as uninformed comments are left alone due due to ignorance or ill informed facts.

I am not defending the media in this, which you seem to think those in favour are. It is a case of animal cruelty under the Animal Welfare Act. Which States:

Unnecessary suffering

A person commits an offence if—
(a) an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer,
(b) he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so,
(c) the animal is a protected animal, and (d) the suffering is unnecessary.

A person commits an offence if—
(a)he is responsible for an animal,
(b) an act, or failure to act, of another person causes the animal to suffer,
(c) he permitted that to happen or failed to take such steps (whether by way of supervising the other person or otherwise) as were reasonable in all the circumstances to prevent that happening, and
(d) the suffering is unnecessary.

The considerations to which it is relevant to have regard when determining for the purposes of this section whether suffering is unnecessary include—
(a) whether the suffering could reasonably have been avoided or reduced;
(b) whether the conduct which caused the suffering was in compliance with any relevant enactment or any relevant provisions of a licence or
code of practice issued under an enactment;

She committed an offence under that act, and therefore should be punished. Nothing more nothing less. Which again states:

A person guilty of an offence under any of sections 4, 5, 6(1) and (2), 7 and 8 shall be liable on summary conviction to—
(a) imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or
(b) a fine not exceeding £20,000, or to both.
Click to expand...

It's all about money, it has nothing to do with the law.
There will be plenty of cases of factory farming cruelty that the RSPCA can prosecute if they want to, they just don't want to because
1. The public generally don't know what's involved in factory farming and generally don't care about farm animals, so the RSPCA won't be left millions by dotty old women if the RSPCA become active in farming cruelty cases.
2. The RSPCA make shed loads of money from their 'Freedom Foods' scheme, where factory farms pay a fortune for the right to belong to the scheme and use the logo, which deceives the public into believing that the animals are treated properly.

And even if you were right about the legal situation, the RSPCA could campaign to get the law changed - but the fact of the matter is that campaigning would cost them money that they might consider to be wasted because it only helped a few hundred million unseen farm animals - much better to be seen to be doing something when a domestic animal is involved.
 
mrgubby said:
Just like there is no justification for threating harm to this woman for her actions

I'd say that she's had more than an equivalent of 15 hours in a wheelie bin :shrug:
Click to expand...

Yeah I quite agree. It's always best to let the authorities handle things rather than turning 'justice' over to the baying mob.
 
I think what she did was really cruel, but I also think the reaction has gone way too far. Child rapists are getting an easier time than this woman!
 
ha ha ha love the cats revenge video, cant be beaten, not a fan of cats so i see no problem with this, yes its crewl buuuut yep im over it...

by the way, its illegal to harm a dog not a cat... e.g. if you run into a dog you can be arrested or something if you dont inform the owner, if you run over a cat your encouraged to do a double tap to make sur eyou did a good job and not have to tell anyone it was you!!!
 
Garry Edwards said:
It's all about money, it has nothing to do with the law.
There will be plenty of cases of factory farming cruelty that the RSPCA can prosecute if they want to, they just don't want to because
1. The public generally don't know what's involved in factory farming and generally don't care about farm animals, so the RSPCA won't be left millions by dotty old women if the RSPCA become active in farming cruelty cases.
Click to expand...

Show me some evidence. Oh wait, you can't, probably because you have none!

Garry Edwards said:
2. The RSPCA make shed loads of money from their 'Freedom Foods' scheme, where factory farms pay a fortune for the right to belong to the scheme and use the logo, which deceives the public into believing that the animals are treated properly.
Click to expand...

Those who bare the mark work within a strict set of standards which are regularly checked! You care more about an animal for food than a pet? Too much Hugh Fearnly Whittingstall maybe?


Garry Edwards said:
And even if you were right about the legal situation, the RSPCA could campaign to get the law changed - but the fact of the matter is that campaigning would cost them money that they might consider to be wasted because it only helped a few hundred million unseen farm animals - much better to be seen to be doing something when a domestic animal is involved.
Click to expand...

There is no maybe Garry I AM IT IS A LEGAL DOCUMENT GARRY! READ IT HERE

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/058/2006058.htm

You can even google it yourself if you think my link is dodgy!

Several people including the RSPCA campaign against it, but there is no way the supermarkets will change, and they have power beyond everyone! They can also import (which many do) meat from abroad. Do you buy your meat from a supermarket Gary? Surely if they were ethical they would check their suppliers.

Lastly, this is not a farm animal it is a family pet!

As said before if it was a 17 year old "Chav" I am sure a lot of your opinions would be different.

The media circus is a joke, but the actual act was an act of cruelty. The dumb bitch can't even say why she did it? She should be punished within the confines of the law.

The RSPCA receive no government funding, and as a charity have to get funds, which they do. Same could be said of the NSPCC, but I doubt you will.

What's your issue Garry? Did some Auntie leave all her money to the RSPCA rather than you?
 
Last edited:
BandyQuill said:
ha ha ha love the cats revenge video, cant be beaten, not a fan of cats so i see no problem with this, yes its crewl buuuut yep im over it...

by the way, its illegal to harm a dog not a cat... e.g. if you run into a dog you can be arrested or something if you dont inform the owner, if you run over a cat your encouraged to do a double tap to make sur eyou did a good job and not have to tell anyone it was you!!!
Click to expand...

Nice attitude
 
BandyQuill said:
ha ha ha love the cats revenge video, cant be beaten, not a fan of cats so i see no problem with this, yes its crewl buuuut yep im over it...

by the way, its illegal to harm a dog not a cat... e.g. if you run into a dog you can be arrested or something if you dont inform the owner, if you run over a cat your encouraged to do a double tap to make sur eyou did a good job and not have to tell anyone it was you!!!
Click to expand...

Idiots like you are what the ignore button is made for! Never had to use it before, but never seen such idiocy before:(:cuckoo:
 
ding76uk said:
Idiots like you are what the ignore button is made for! Never had to use it before, but never seen such idiocy before:(:cuckoo:
Click to expand...

But legalised cruelty to farm animals is okay? .. re your earrlier post!
 
ding76uk said:
Show me some evidence. Oh wait, you can't, probably because you have none!



Those who bare the mark work within a strict set of standards which are regularly checked! You care more about an animal for food than a pet? Too much Hugh Fearnly Whittingstall maybe?




There is no maybe Garry I AM IT IS A LEGAL DOCUMENT GARRY! READ IT HERE

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/058/2006058.htm

You can even google it yourself if you think my link is dodgy!

Several people including the RSPCA campaign against it, but there is no way the supermarkets will change, and they have power beyond everyone! They can also import (which many do) meat from abroad. Do you buy your meat from a supermarket Gary? Surely if they were ethical they would check their suppliers.

Lastly, this is not a farm animal it is a family pet!

As said before if it was a 17 year old "Chav" I am sure a lot of your opinions would be different.

The media circus is a joke, but the actual act was an act of cruelty. The dumb bitch can't even say why she did it? She should be punished within the confines of the law.

The RSPCA receive no government funding, and as a charity have to get funds, which they do. Same could be said of the NSPCC, but I doubt you will.

What's your issue Garry? Did some Auntie leave all her money to the RSPCA rather than you?
Click to expand...
My issue is that I like animals and don't see why some should be treated differently to others.
Oh, and I used to be a RSPPCA branch chairman and acting unpaid inspector, so have some insight into how they operate and why.
 
ding76uk said:
The RSPCA receive no government funding, and as a charity have to get funds, which they do. Same could be said of the NSPCC, but I doubt you will.
Click to expand...

This is incorrect. The very reason for seeking charitable status is the financial benefits to be gained.

Back in the 70's the RSPCA signed up to a charter of Animal Rights. They dropped it when the Charity Commission warned them they would lose their charitable status.

The get lots of tax exemptions
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/charities/guidance-notes/annex1/annex_i.htm

and other benefits like not paying business rates on shops either in full or part.

When the RSPCA prosecutes someone and loses they dont pay the Defendants costs, they are usually paid out of central funds - that's you and me.

So whether or not anyone here supports the RSPCA we are all paying towards their activities.
 
Splog said:
But legalised cruelty to farm animals is okay? .. re your earrlier post!
Click to expand...

No. Cruelty is wrong in any form, but battery farming when done correctly is not that cruel. They are under regular inspection, and it annoys that the whole Jamie Oliver and co. (who was incidentally found using battery eggs in his Cornwall Restaurant) bandwagon that has been jumped upon.

As for the whole anti RSPCA thing. They do a good job, who else would pick up if they stopped? Not saying they are perfect, but then again neither is the NSPCC and a lot of other major charities.

I know charities get a lot of benefits (I sit on the board for one) but although it is a big business, the RSPCA does do good work!
 
Last edited:
ding76uk said:
No. Cruelty is wrong in any form, but battery farming when done correctly is not that cruel. They are under regular inspection, and it annoys that the whole Jamie Oliver and co. (who was incidentally found using battery eggs in his Cornwall Restaurant) bandwagon that has been jumped upon.

As for the whole anti RSPCA thing. They do a good job, who else would pick up if they stopped? Not saying they are perfect, but then again neither is the NSPCC and a lot of other major charities.

I know charities get a lot of benefits (I sit on the board for one) but although it is a big business, the RSPCA does do good work!
Click to expand...

The minimum legal requirement of space for one bird is just under three quarters the size of an A4 sheet of paper.
Click to expand...

Ironically the cat had more room than that.
 
ding76uk said:
No. Cruelty is wrong in any form, but battery farming when done correctly is not that cruel. They are under regular inspection, and it annoys that the whole Jamie Oliver and co. (who was incidentally found using battery eggs in his Cornwall Restaurant) bandwagon that has been jumped upon.

As for the whole anti RSPCA thing. They do a good job, who else would pick up if they stopped? Not saying they are perfect, but then again neither is the NSPCC and a lot of other major charities.

I know charities get a lot of benefits (I sit on the board for one) but although it is a big business, the RSPCA does do good work!
Click to expand...

They used to do a good job, in the days when it was run as a charity, and at local level, Branches still do a good job - but head office seems to have very different priorities.

Who else would pick up if they stopped? There are loads of smaller animal charities that would prosper financially if the RSPCA didn't get nearly all of the donations and legacies. These smaller specialists are the ones who have real expertise and which make a real difference.

Of course no organisation is 100% efficient, my concern with the RSPCA is that they don't even try, not that they try and sometimes fail. Their policies are geared towards profit, not animal welfare and although charities like the NSPCC will sometimes get it wrong, I'm sure you won't find that they're only interested in helping blue eyed blond haired white English kids aged 0 - 2 years....
But the RSPCA seem to be mainly interested in helping certain species of animal - cats, dogs, horses mainly - and their only interest in non-domestic animals seems to be the money they can make out of the farmers who breed them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top