RugbyRebels

WaspInWales wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Are we really referencing lad bible now?!?!?!?!?

What bible do you reference?

None.

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 lot
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.p ... y=allvotes

Mellsblue wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Are we really referencing lad bible now?!?!?!?!?

What bible do you reference?

None.

Godless heathen.

Go with christ bro

Mellsblue wrote:Are we really referencing lad bible now?!?!?!?!?

I thought it was satire.
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

Some of the historical follow up was about Henry IV banning alchemy on penalty of death.

There's only one reason he'd do that. Maybe two....

Which Tyler wrote:

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 lot
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.p ... y=allvotes

I’m well aware. I’m just questioning the source cited.

WaspInWales wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:
What bible do you reference?

None.

Godless heathen.

Flattery will get you everywhere.

kk67 wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Are we really referencing lad bible now?!?!?!?!?

I thought it was satire.
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

If Freddie is producing Gold again, that sounds more like necromancy than alchemy!

morepork wrote:
This “logic” is contrary even to guidelines for the use of animals in research. Spectacularly fucked up.

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.

Digby wrote:

morepork wrote:
This “logic” is contrary even to guidelines for the use of animals in research. Spectacularly fucked up.

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?

morepork wrote:

Digby wrote:

morepork wrote:
This “logic” is contrary even to guidelines for the use of animals in research. Spectacularly fucked up.

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?

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

Digby wrote:

morepork 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?

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

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.
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.

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!

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

morepork wrote:

Does the UK ship live cattle or sheep anywhere currently?

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

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.
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.

This is the most ludicrous of arguments. Too many celebs jumping on a bandwagon that doesn’t exist. Sound bytes over reality.

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!

Link not working mate, who is th orange one after now?

Sandydragon wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

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

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.
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.

This is the most ludicrous of arguments. Too many celebs jumping on a bandwagon that doesn’t exist. Sound bytes over reality.

You say this but I believe Olly Murs is being recruited by GCHQ as a London field agent.

Sandydragon wrote: Link not working mate, who is th orange one after now?

Sorry, try this
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... -tape.html

He's after... last year's version of himself

Which Tyler wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Link not working mate, who is th orange one after now?

Sorry, try this
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... -tape.html

He's after... last year's version of himself

Thanks. Trump trying to alter reality, nothing new then.

So Melania's comments about his comments being wrong are a figment of my imagination, or is she so smashed on painkillers she apologised for something which never happened?

Deny a verbal admission of sexual harassment whilst aggressively promoting a homophobic reactionary political candidate currently under a cloud of alleged sex crimes against minors.

Total

Fucking

Class

Like or loathe the cunt (guess where I stand on the choice of words to describe him and previous posts used to describe the cunts actions)...

Trump makes the news.

Whether this is to divert public opinion from the Russia investigation, or the many other doubts into his private life and dealings, you have got to admire the brass balls on the cunt.

His core support lap it up, others for and against comment on it and the media love reporting it.

He fights news, fake or otherwise, with fake news. Fake as his perma-tan or love for religion (white Jesus based religion).

Job done.

If impeachment ever happens, I can only imagine the result on the streets of some safe seat states.

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..

Utter balls. It's one of those cheap right wing excuses.
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.

kk67 wrote:

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..

Utter balls. It's one of those cheap right wing excuses.
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.

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?

I'm actually asking as it hasn't been obvious in coverage and as much as everyone likes a rant simply calling them wankers doesn't illustrate much

I don't.
I suspect the concept of 'animals not being sentient' is very much an economic issue....because it's patently untrue.

kk67 wrote:I don't.
the concept of 'animals not being sentient'

Some of your posts do add weight to that line of thinking.