Farm pleads guilty to turkey cruelty
ant
In article <34ce917e...@news.demon.co.uk>,
Spooky wrote:
>Subject: Farm pleads guilty to turkey cruelty
>From: Spooky
>Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 10:24:39 GMT
>Newsgroups: uk.politics.animals
>
>From the Birmingham Post (14/1/98):
>
>A Midland turkey producer yesterday admitted allowing more than 2,300
>birds to die of disease or the cold in appalling conditions at a farm.
......<large snip, purely for economy of space....>.....
>
>Magistrates adjourned sentencing Cooksey and the firm until today.
>-----
>
>Well, what a hot-bed of animal abuse Redditch is. First we have
>Stephen Woods, live animal exporter. Then we have Attwells down the
>road in Beoley and, also in Beoley, those people who were featured on
>the local news last week having allowed 4 ostriches to die in terrible
>conditions. The rest of the birds were taken away and rehomed at the
>West Midlands Safari Park. The ostriches (whose feathers are not
>waterproof) were being kept outside during the prolonged bout of rainy
>weather.
Personally I am pleased that such negligence is punished. I truly hope that
such cases and punishments will deter future similar abuse.
>Let no-one else lecture me about farmers caring about animals. As Mr
>Woods once said of the sheep he exports every week "they're not
>animals, they're just commodities".
The cases that come up are the minority of farmers. Not one of them will
have profitted by the deaths (where appropriate) of their charges. You are
wrong to assume that all farmers treat their charges in this way: it is not
in the farmers interests to produce sick, mangy or dead animals. Mr Woods
is right: they are commodities. That does not excuse poor husbandry. Nor
does it mean raising animals as a source of food is intrinsically wrong.
You believe to the contrary and have a right to. But don't make us all live
by your extreme standards.
BTW publicising cases such as these is fine and to be applauded in that it
shows animal welfare is taken seriously and that abuses are not tolerated.
I think it is wrong for you to use these cases as a tool to brand *all*
farners in the same vein.
ant
ant
In article <34edde1f...@news.demon.co.uk>,
Spooky wrote:
>>Mr Woods is right: they are commodities.
>
>There we will differ forever. A sheep is no more a commodity than a
>pet cat or a dog to my mind.
Fair enough. As most sheep are traded and farmed for mutton/lamb/wool
production they would be defined as a commodity, unlike a pet cat or dog.
I appreciate your point of view and know what you are saying but do not
know how we can reconcile that with the fact that people have a right to
demand sheep products and while there is a demand, sheep will remain
commodities.
NB that does not mean I think they should be treated like bales of straw
etc.
>
>>I think it is wrong for you to use these cases as a tool to brand *all*
>>farners in the same vein.
>
>As they all club together so much these days, who am I to go against
>their wishes?
Keep on publicising the bad ones. A former boss of mine was fined as some
slurry leaked out of the pit and found its way to a canal a couple of
fields away. It was an accident, but he was nevertheless fined. The effect
on him and other farmers in the neighbourhood was dramatic. All waste
sytems were examined and ensured to be safe.
The problems arise as your lot will know, when everyone is branded as a
bandit. I resent being lumped with callous/cruel or abusive farmers. You
prob resent being lumped with hooligans who beat women and children with
baseball bats (I take it as an example, lets not get diverted on it..).
As ever intolerance breeds intolerance and attempts to tell people how to
lead their lives will meet with resistance equal or greater to that
applied. Whereas if a reasonable approach is adopted, I have always found
people can talk and go some way to resolving things.
The League's monitors may have experienced 'problems' in the past (I have
never seen hunt followers do anything but ignore them). But as Tim (I
think) and I have both said, they could serve a useful purpose *if* they
did not have on their agenda a goal to end our way of life. 's all in the
attitude...
This is why I do not resent the geezer wot filmed the Quorn bagged fox.
That is not what hunting should be about. If his film resulted in ending
such practices, I am glad.
Ditto with poor husbandry or abuse.
I know the level of treatment of animals at which your definition of abuse
kicks in will be very different from mine, but we have agreed on a few
items...
ant
Paul Brewer
In article <34c7d0c0...@news.demon.co.uk>, Spooky <?@?.?> writes
>Further to my original post, I can now confirm that Attwell Farms Ltd
>have been ordered to pay a total of 17,750 pounds and Peter Cooksey
>was banned from keeping fowl for 10 years and ordered to pay 1000
>pounds.
>
>Chris W.
The troble is, they will probably carry on, using another person as the
'nominal' owner/director.
ISTR that that bloke French who was done for cruelty to his livestock
just carried on, using his stockman as the nominal owner.
--
Paul B
Note: reply to pa...@larkhall.co.uk if replying by Email
Kill spammers - visit http://www.pdi.net:81/~eristic/junkmail/
Donal
Paul Brewer wrote:
>
> In article <34c7d0c0...@news.demon.co.uk>, Spooky <?@?.?> writes
> >Further to my original post, I can now confirm that Attwell Farms Ltd
> >have been ordered to pay a total of 17,750 pounds and Peter Cooksey
> >was banned from keeping fowl for 10 years and ordered to pay 1000
> >pounds.
> >
> >Chris W.
> The troble is, they will probably carry on, using another person as the
> 'nominal' owner/director.
>
> ISTR that that bloke French who was done for cruelty to his livestock
> just carried on, using his stockman as the nominal owner.
`former' owner was found guilty of not killing the mink properly.
--
Donal
py...@swansea.ac.uk
Swansea GreenAction http://python.swan.ac.uk/~pydan/main.html
Swansea Animal Rights http://python.swan.ac.uk/~pydan/SARG.html
Waste of Space squat crew
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2239
ant
In article <34c2cc4f...@news.demon.co.uk>,
Spooky wrote:
>>As ever intolerance breeds intolerance and attempts to tell people how to
>>lead their lives will meet with resistance equal or greater to that
>>applied. Whereas if a reasonable approach is adopted, I have always found
>>people can talk and go some way to resolving things.
>
>Not when their starting positions are poles apart.
I did say 'reasonable' people....ie literally, people who will use reason.
ant
Donal
But your definition of reason can imply only people who see things your
way.
ant
In article <34C79C...@swansea.ac.uk>,
Donal <py...@swansea.ac.uk> wrote:
>But your definition of reason can imply only people who see things your
>way.
Not at all.....I consider a discussion I had with Spooky in another thread
very reasoned on both sides, most enjoyable and very instructive as I
learned a lot about his view points and I hope he learned a few about mine,
in particular that because I go hunting, it does not mean that I am a
heartless bastard who cares not a jot for animals, nature or the
countryside.
It does not mean that either of us were converted in our views, but may be
we each learned to tolerate each others views a bit more....then may be
not. Without a reasoned discussion we certainly would not.
ant
Donal
ant wrote:
>
> In article <34C79C...@swansea.ac.uk>,
> Donal <py...@swansea.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >But your definition of reason can imply only people who see things your
> >way.
>
> Not at all.....I consider a discussion I had with Spooky in another thread
> very reasoned on both sides, most enjoyable and very instructive as I
> learned a lot about his view points and I hope he learned a few about mine,
> in particular that because I go hunting, it does not mean that I am a
> heartless bastard who cares not a jot for animals, nature or the
> countryside.
Ditto, I have learnt a lot myself
> It does not mean that either of us were converted in our views, but may be
> we each learned to tolerate each others views a bit more....then may be
> not. Without a reasoned discussion we certainly would not.
Unfortuantely, reasoned discussion breaks down on such a controversial,
polemic topic as hunting and some peoples style of arguing can be a lot
less rational than others, which leads to more frustration.
ant
In article <34C90B...@swansea.ac.uk>,
Donal <py...@swansea.ac.uk> wrote:
>Unfortuantely, reasoned discussion breaks down on such a controversial,
>polemic topic as hunting and some peoples style of arguing can be a lot
>less rational than others, which leads to more frustration.
So true :-)
ant
VampC...@aol.com
> does it mean raising animals as a source of food is intrinsically wrong.
> You believe to the contrary and have a right to. But don't make us all live
> by your extreme standards.
>
> BTW publicising cases such as these is fine and to be applauded in that it
> shows animal welfare is taken seriously and that abuses are not tolerated.
> farners in the same vein.
>
GUYS CHECK OUT THE WEBSITE OAKLANDINTERNATIONAL.CO.UK