Re: Trump
Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:14 pm
None.WaspInWales wrote:What bible do you reference?Mellsblue wrote:Are we really referencing lad bible now?!?!?!?!?
None.WaspInWales wrote:What bible do you reference?Mellsblue wrote:Are we really referencing lad bible now?!?!?!?!?
It's all over the place, you can sign petitions against it, find out who voted for it, the lotMellsblue wrote:Are we really referencing lad bible now?!?!?!?!?
Godless heathen.Mellsblue wrote:None.WaspInWales wrote:What bible do you reference?Mellsblue wrote:Are we really referencing lad bible now?!?!?!?!?
I thought it was satire.Mellsblue wrote:Are we really referencing lad bible now?!?!?!?!?
I’m well aware. I’m just questioning the source cited.Which Tyler wrote:It's all over the place, you can sign petitions against it, find out who voted for it, the lotMellsblue wrote:Are we really referencing lad bible now?!?!?!?!?
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.p ... y=allvotes
Flattery will get you everywhere.WaspInWales wrote:Godless heathen.Mellsblue wrote:None.WaspInWales wrote:
What bible do you reference?
If Freddie is producing Gold again, that sounds more like necromancy than alchemy!kk67 wrote:I thought it was satire.Mellsblue wrote:Are we really referencing lad bible now?!?!?!?!?
Funny story,...I watched a tv program last night that explained alchemy was frequently being performed.
Mercury exposed to 3 hours of a controlled nuclear reaction and they can produce gold......tiny amounts
Other than this perhaps not being the right thread it's also not exactly true.morepork wrote:
This “logic” is contrary even to guidelines for the use of animals in research. Spectacularly fucked up.
Digby wrote:Other than this perhaps not being the right thread it's also not exactly true.morepork wrote:
This “logic” is contrary even to guidelines for the use of animals in research. Spectacularly fucked up.
I will say upfront I don't know why they couldn't have carried this forward as part of the EU withdrawal bill, I've heard the argument from the UK government and it doesn't make much sense, still less sense when it'll come with a huge mob of motivated and angry animal lovers (some of whom are also complete loons) who're not going to let up in directing grief at the government.
However, there does remain in UK legislation a recognition of the sentience of animals and that they can feel pain, but we'll only be left with that being a duty of care for the owner. What not carrying forward the EU legislation forward seems to do is remove some obligation for the state to act and leave it all on the private owner, exactly what that means I've not seen set out yet owing to all the hysteria.
So how this breaks down in practical law isn't clear, and the government might well be looking to bring forward separate legislation outside the Brexit bill anyway. Still doesn't make any sense to me if they plan to revisit this area they couldn't have sought to amend the EU regs rather than scrap and start again, and it also contradicts many utterances we've had from people as ill-informed as David Davies that they wouldn't do this sort of thing.
Sure. Tbh most farms have to ship to some degree as slaughterhouses are much more centralised than used to be the case. But you're allowed to ship livestock in the EU, not just the UKmorepork wrote:Digby wrote:Other than this perhaps not being the right thread it's also not exactly true.morepork wrote:
This “logic” is contrary even to guidelines for the use of animals in research. Spectacularly fucked up.
I will say upfront I don't know why they couldn't have carried this forward as part of the EU withdrawal bill, I've heard the argument from the UK government and it doesn't make much sense, still less sense when it'll come with a huge mob of motivated and angry animal lovers (some of whom are also complete loons) who're not going to let up in directing grief at the government.
However, there does remain in UK legislation a recognition of the sentience of animals and that they can feel pain, but we'll only be left with that being a duty of care for the owner. What not carrying forward the EU legislation forward seems to do is remove some obligation for the state to act and leave it all on the private owner, exactly what that means I've not seen set out yet owing to all the hysteria.
So how this breaks down in practical law isn't clear, and the government might well be looking to bring forward separate legislation outside the Brexit bill anyway. Still doesn't make any sense to me if they plan to revisit this area they couldn't have sought to amend the EU regs rather than scrap and start again, and it also contradicts many utterances we've had from people as ill-informed as David Davies that they wouldn't do this sort of thing.
Does the UK ship live cattle or sheep anywhere currently?
It’s EU law that allows it. The central plank of the freedom of movement of goods means it can’t be stopped by a single member nation. The UK actually has higher animal welfare standards than most EU countries. The govt argue that they wish to continue to have higher animal welfare standards than those provided in EU law and a ban on the export of live animals is central to that. This is the argument for not enshrining the sentience of animals in U.K. law as part of the withdrawal bill. Why they can’t adopt the EU laws and then amend them later I don’t know, but the argument is that as they see the EU laws as flawed they’d rather start with a clean slate.Digby wrote:Sure. Tbh most farms have to ship to some degree as slaughterhouses are much more centralised than used to be the case. But you're allowed to ship livestock in the EU, not just the UKmorepork wrote:Digby wrote:
Other than this perhaps not being the right thread it's also not exactly true.
I will say upfront I don't know why they couldn't have carried this forward as part of the EU withdrawal bill, I've heard the argument from the UK government and it doesn't make much sense, still less sense when it'll come with a huge mob of motivated and angry animal lovers (some of whom are also complete loons) who're not going to let up in directing grief at the government.
However, there does remain in UK legislation a recognition of the sentience of animals and that they can feel pain, but we'll only be left with that being a duty of care for the owner. What not carrying forward the EU legislation forward seems to do is remove some obligation for the state to act and leave it all on the private owner, exactly what that means I've not seen set out yet owing to all the hysteria.
So how this breaks down in practical law isn't clear, and the government might well be looking to bring forward separate legislation outside the Brexit bill anyway. Still doesn't make any sense to me if they plan to revisit this area they couldn't have sought to amend the EU regs rather than scrap and start again, and it also contradicts many utterances we've had from people as ill-informed as David Davies that they wouldn't do this sort of thing.
Does the UK ship live cattle or sheep anywhere currently?
This is the most ludicrous of arguments. Too many celebs jumping on a bandwagon that doesn’t exist. Sound bytes over reality.Mellsblue wrote:It’s EU law that allows it. The central plank of the freedom of movement of goods means it can’t be stopped by a single member nation. The UK actually has higher animal welfare standards than most EU countries. The govt argue that they wish to continue to have higher animal welfare standards than those provided in EU law and a ban on the export of live animals is central to that. This is the argument for not enshrining the sentience of animals in U.K. law as part of the withdrawal bill. Why they can’t adopt the EU laws and then amend them later I don’t know, but the argument is that as they see the EU laws as flawed they’d rather start with a clean slate.Digby wrote:Sure. Tbh most farms have to ship to some degree as slaughterhouses are much more centralised than used to be the case. But you're allowed to ship livestock in the EU, not just the UKmorepork wrote:
Does the UK ship live cattle or sheep anywhere currently?
Most of the talk around farming subsidies is that a decent % will be based on environmentally friendly husbandry of the land rather than just how much land you have.
Now, as with all governments, you shouldn’t believe it till it’s on the statute book but the noises are good if you care about animals and the environment.
Link not working mate, who is th orange one after now?Which Tyler wrote:http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...r ... -tape.html
Yay, Trump's found a new person to attack and accuse of lying on the public record.... and this time it's personal!
You say this but I believe Olly Murs is being recruited by GCHQ as a London field agent.Sandydragon wrote:This is the most ludicrous of arguments. Too many celebs jumping on a bandwagon that doesn’t exist. Sound bytes over reality.Mellsblue wrote:It’s EU law that allows it. The central plank of the freedom of movement of goods means it can’t be stopped by a single member nation. The UK actually has higher animal welfare standards than most EU countries. The govt argue that they wish to continue to have higher animal welfare standards than those provided in EU law and a ban on the export of live animals is central to that. This is the argument for not enshrining the sentience of animals in U.K. law as part of the withdrawal bill. Why they can’t adopt the EU laws and then amend them later I don’t know, but the argument is that as they see the EU laws as flawed they’d rather start with a clean slate.Digby wrote:
Sure. Tbh most farms have to ship to some degree as slaughterhouses are much more centralised than used to be the case. But you're allowed to ship livestock in the EU, not just the UK
Most of the talk around farming subsidies is that a decent % will be based on environmentally friendly husbandry of the land rather than just how much land you have.
Now, as with all governments, you shouldn’t believe it till it’s on the statute book but the noises are good if you care about animals and the environment.
Sorry, try thisSandydragon wrote: Link not working mate, who is th orange one after now?
Thanks. Trump trying to alter reality, nothing new then.Which Tyler wrote:Sorry, try thisSandydragon wrote: Link not working mate, who is th orange one after now?
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... -tape.html
He's after... last year's version of himself
Utter balls. It's one of those cheap right wing excuses.Mellsblue wrote:[ The govt argue that they wish to continue to have higher animal welfare standards than those provided in EU law and a ban on the export of live animals is central to that. This is the argument for not enshrining the sentience of animals in U.K. law as part of the withdrawal bill..
Absent of whether the government does revisit this outside the Brexit Bill, do you know how in practical terms not carrying over the relevant piece of EU legislation Vs falling back on the existing Animal Welfare act changes the picture in any practical sense?kk67 wrote:Utter balls. It's one of those cheap right wing excuses.Mellsblue wrote:[ The govt argue that they wish to continue to have higher animal welfare standards than those provided in EU law and a ban on the export of live animals is central to that. This is the argument for not enshrining the sentience of animals in U.K. law as part of the withdrawal bill..
I say cheap, but they probably spent a few million on the PR agency that provided that bollocks justification.
Wank in print. Brought to you by wankers, paid for by wankers, designed by wankers.
Some of your posts do add weight to that line of thinking.kk67 wrote:I don't.
the concept of 'animals not being sentient'