If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
100 hours Community Service for starving a dog to death
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Story.
The RSPCA officer says it "was the worst case of abuse in 20 years service", and yet this woman is given 100 hours community service for starving that poor creature to death.
It sure puts that six month sentence for using a camera phone in court into perspective. Take a picture of nothing and you get the book thrown at you, but torture a poor defenceless creature for nearly a month and you get a slap on the wrist and told not to do it again.
This country's judicial system is fucked up, it really is.
The RSPCA officer says it "was the worst case of abuse in 20 years service", and yet this woman is given 100 hours community service for starving that poor creature to death.
It sure puts that six month sentence for using a camera phone in court into perspective. Take a picture of nothing and you get the book thrown at you, but torture a poor defenceless creature for nearly a month and you get a slap on the wrist and told not to do it again.
This country's judicial system is fucked up, it really is.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
What a bitch.
Or feed her to starving dogs.
Cruelty to animals is one of the lowest crimes you can commit. Disgusting.
If you can do that to an animal you can do it to a person.
Excellent ....... unless of course you're a drug company perhaps?
Then you torture them anyway you fancy, and anyone who stands up for the animals is "terrorist vermin", right?
:crazyeyes
and btw, if you can do that to a person .......
As I have said several times, and indeed in the thread where you lifted that from, testing on animals for cosmetic reasons is wrong, deeply wrong. But if it takes the death of a thousand rats and monkeys to develop a drug that will save human life then, sorry, but the rats and monkeys are a fair swap.
PETA, of course, don't agree, and seem to think that animal life is actually MORE valuable than human life. Which it is not.
I agree. To test make-up or shampoo on animals is unnecessary and in my opinion pretty sick. But if testing on animals for genuine medical reasons is perfectly justifiable…And I'm pretty sure most normal people would agree with you so it's a shame that they still do test on animals pointlessly for cosmetics and stuff.
That's exactly it.
I don't buy comsetics that have been tested on animals. I refuse to allow anyone I know to buy IAMS pet food, because of what they did to the animals when it was being developed.
But if a new cancer-busting drug can only be developed by testing on animals then I believe it is sad, but that it is a fair swap.
As for PETA: People Eat Tasty Animals:)
I'm not sure that you're representing PETAs' position entirely accurately. :rolleyes:
And the efficacy of animal experimentation is dubious to say the least.
:rolleyes:
So they aren't going around sending letter bombs to people, trying to kill them?
My mistake :rolleyes:
According to whom?
And how many humans exactly have they killed?
Pandora Pound, research fellow1, Shah Ebrahim, professor1, Peter Sandercock, professor2, Michael B Bracken, professor3, Ian Roberts, professor4 Reviewing Animal Trials Systematically (RATS) Group
82% of 500 GPs
Professor Pietro Croce, MD
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM)
Harris L. Coulter, Ph.D.
N Y Times
Dr Robert Sharpe
amongst many others.......
Did he actually quote the NY times?
A dubious website, with no credits. Based in Australia.
Is that the best you can do, freethetrolls?
The first one, for example, is a paper talking mainly about the poor methodology used in animal experimentation. That's all very well, but this is not of itself a reason to stop animal testing, as is pointed out in two letters written in response to the very same article.
And regardless of the evidence, none of it would justify violent protest against people who work in the field.
Read the original statement
Geddit????
And what in your opinion would justify violent protest?
The efficacy of animal testing is dubious and contested. There is a growing trend towards non-animal alternatives. That has pretty much happened in terms of cosmetics.
Tell you what, why don't you give an example of a medicine that has come onto the market and been succesful, as a result of animal testing........
Okay, so what issue in your opinion would justify non-peaceful protest?
That sounds cruel to me.
I do not feel guilty, no-one has chastised me and I will receive no kind of legal punishment........
Celecoxib - plenty of nasty side effects on offer...... which is the point - animal testing is not creating safe drugs, nor does it highlight all the possible side effects.
What fury is that? The thing I'm pointing out is that people are quite happy to wax lyrical about someone starving a dog on the one hand, whilst sanctioning torture of animals on the other.
My own personal viewpoint on the issue is that until we learn to treat all people better, animals will continue to suffer.
I'm not an animal rights protestor.
So, your comment was generic rather than specific.
It could well be said that the Animal rights lobby have gained more through protest than any other group.
Petitions, letters to MPs, A-B marches, placard waving and slogan chanting are not nearly as efficacious......
Which may well be why the liberals love them so much - cos that way people can expend their anger and the world stays the same.
Or perhaps you really believe that the government responds to protest?