| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| UK Animal Cruelty Laws: Slugs & Snails Could Get Same Protection As Cats & Dogs |
| 2004-07-11 |
| Sorry Mucky, but this is madness... A new animal welfare law that will offer slugs and snails the same protection as cats and dogs was condemned by gardeners yesterday. Legislation to be announced by the Government this week will give courts the power to impose fines of up to £20,000 and 12 months in jail on people found guilty of mistreating animals. Anyone under the age of 16 will be banned from owning a pet... - when the insane PC socialists are in power, sometimes you don’t need the EU for laws of mindblowing stupidity - ...and goldfish will no longer be allowed to be given as prizes at fairgrounds. The legislation could lead to gardeners [and presumably farmers, vets, anglers etc.] being fined for killing insects, worms, caterpillars, slugs and snails, if scientific evidence proves they have suffered pain and distress. Ministers say the law, which updates existing legislation, is needed to protect animals from abuse. Horticulturalists rejected the idea that they could be guilty of cruelty. Bunny Guinness, The Telegraph gardening columnist and six-times winner of the gold medal at the Chelsea Flower Show, said gardeners should not be liable to fines for protecting their gardens. "Hundreds of slugs and snails are being slaughtered in gardens up and down the country. It would be quite ridiculous to call that cruelty. Almost all gardeners use slug pellets or salt to keep the pests at bay," she said. Hmm, ’Bunny’, a tip: using emotive phrases like "slaughtered" isn’t a good idea when you’re trying to defend the slaughtering. Just a bit of PR advice. John Cushnie, a regular panellist on Radio 4’s Gardeners’ Question Time, said some aspects of the legislation were nonsensical. "To give worms and slugs protection under the law is ludicrous. If I have an infestation of slugs or snails or cabbage white butterflies then I will get rid of them in whatever way I choose. No one is going to tell me that the things are suffering. If I want to boil them alive, stamp on them or treat them to a slow drawn-out death by poison then I will - and would like to see the Government that would try to interfere with a man and his garden." John, I agree with what you’re getting at, but see above. The draft Bill, which updates the Protection of Animals Act 1911, will be published next week by Ben Bradshaw, the minister for animal welfare. The penalties for cruelty would double the present maximum jail sentence and substantially increase the £5,000 maximum fine. Anyone owning a pet, farm or exotic animal would have a statutory duty of care towards it and could have it taken away. They could also be banned from looking after another. Unborn animals will receive the same protection. That’s convenient - we’ve got an abortion debate going on at the moment. So let me see - on the one hand we’ve got greens and reds arguing for the rights of slug eggs and aphid nymphs, on the other we’ve got many of the same people arguing that viable unborn human kids are dispensible irritations. Hypocrisy, anyone? RSPCA inspectors would gain the right to enter without a warrant any lorry, ferry, plane or hovercraft carrying animals. This has been included because of the growing awareness of the suffering of livestock on long journeys. Howja know the vehicle’s carrying animals till you get inside? It’s only a matter before these self-satisfied charity workers will have legal access to anywhere they please. Inspectors entering a private home without a warrant would need to be accompanied by police. The crackdown follows pressure from the RSPCA and organisations such as the Kennel Club, but has been criticised for not going far enough. The draft contains no reference to circus animals and fails to ban tail docking. "NOOOOooooooo!!! No specific mention of Sammy the Seal?! Calamity! The new law’s useless! USELESS!!! More!" The RSPCA welcomed the Bill but said it would continue to campaign for stricter protection. "MORE!" "This would be the single most |
| Posted by:Bulldog |
| #8 From my daily visit to the BBC website and a regular reading of "have your say" my opinion is this is. It is typical UK legislation and will to the detriment the UK be passed. Now if you will excuse me whilst I go out and toss some snails in to the roadway. |
| Posted by: FlameBait93268 2004-07-11 10:20:38 PM |
| #7 haha very funy. that link is go to story have nothing do with this. |
| Posted by: muck4doo 2004-07-11 7:50:43 PM |
| #6 A cynical person might believe that no one under 16 can own pets because youngsters tend to have no money.The bill appears to be another way for English Gov't.to raise funds for social programs by fining people at will for animal cruelty.No jail time,unless you refuse to pay your fine. |
| Posted by: Stephen 2004-07-11 2:36:29 PM |
| #5 The term "over-civilised" comes to mind. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2004-07-11 1:21:54 PM |
| #4 "All we are saying, is give fleas a chance." |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2004-07-11 11:58:53 AM |
| #3 In other news, the British gubmint is going to regiment every aspect of its subject's diets in an effort to avoide unnecessary loss of intestinal flora and fauna. |
| Posted by: therien 2004-07-11 11:51:53 AM |
| #2 "Even though the changes are not intended to affect hunting, shooting or fishing, the alliance fears animal rights campaigners could attempt to use them in relation to dogs in hunt kennels, racehorses in stables and pheasants reared for game shoots" these laws are intended to do exactly that. Idjits |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-07-11 10:46:53 AM |
| #1 The secret society of NIHM has more influence than I realized. |
| Posted by: ed 2004-07-11 10:35:44 AM |