Unnecessary cruelty to animals

The place to debate matters of faith and religion in a more rigorous manner.
Forum rules
The place to debate matters of faith and religion in a more rigorous manner. Differing perspectives from both Christians and non-Christians are actively welcomed, but contributors should come prepared to justify their opinions and beliefs, while showing due respect to the views of others.

Unnecessary cruelty to animals

Postby Val » July 20th, 2015, 8:41 am

Reverse the UK government's decision to give the go ahead for a puppy farm in Hull, created with the purpose of providing beagle puppies to laboratories for animal testing!

Sickening, please sign


https://www.change.org/p/rt-hon-david-c ... m=copylink
I am who I am, your approval isn't needed
User avatar
Val
 
Posts: 3421
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:22 am
Location: Ireland

Re: Unnecessary cruelty to animals

Postby GregB » July 20th, 2015, 12:07 pm

I've signed the petition. I'll be honest, I don't like dogs in the slightest (though Beagles do have a certain attractiveness) but I like even less any unwarranted cruelty to the poor creatures, dogs or otherwise.
"The war of peoples will be more terrible than those of kings."
- Winston Churchill (1901)
User avatar
GregB
 
Posts: 15464
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:23 am
Location: Barcelona, Spain

Re: Unnecessary cruelty to animals

Postby Lyn » July 20th, 2015, 12:31 pm

I have signed. Very cruel proposition and totally unnecessary.
Many people, who are not 'pet' people, ie wouldn't want a pet in their house and don't always feel comfortable when they visit someone who has a particularly attentive pet, would sign because they do not believe in causing unnecessary suffering to people or animals.
Lyn
 
Posts: 45930
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:25 am

Re: Unnecessary cruelty to animals

Postby Pondero » July 21st, 2015, 12:36 am

I will not put my name and address etc on the Internet in the format of a petition.(for privacy reasons) I think it is a badly organized, ineffective method of complaint.
As the organizer I would put a form letter on the Internet giving reasons why I oppose this dog breeding ground for animal testing, and also give reasons in a format style so you could write your own letters, if you wanted. You choose which of the two methods you prefer.
Then print out a letter to the PM. Give your name,address and telephone number.Put it in an envelope, address it to Mr.Cameron at the House of Commons,London and post it without a stamp.
It will be more effective than a petition and a good deal more private.
If your mind is your brain and your brain is just material , would you rely on it?
John Lennox
User avatar
Pondero
 
Posts: 12407
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:03 am
Location: Etobicoke,Ontario, Canada

Re: Unnecessary cruelty to animals

Postby Sprocket » July 21st, 2015, 6:31 am

Not if it's posted without a stamp, it won't - you'll just get it back marked "refused".
The idiot who, in railway carriages, talks on a mobile phone
We only suffer to ride on the buffer of a Virgin Train, alone.
W.S.Gilbert, modernised.
User avatar
Sprocket
 
Posts: 15782
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:21 am
Location: Hemel Hempstead, Herts.

Re: Unnecessary cruelty to animals

Postby GregB » July 21st, 2015, 7:19 am

Sprocket wrote:Not if it's posted without a stamp, it won't - you'll just get it back marked "refused".

That occurred to me, too - and, unlike Steve, I'm unfamiliar with postal norms!

Far fewer people would take the trouble to write - or type - a letter and post it, in my view, especially in this age of high speed social network communications (deplorable, but there it is.) As for an online form letter, it would still need individual identification details for it to be effective - and despatched - and that means an e-mail, or other, address. I do think an online petition is the best way of garnering wide support, especially beyond frontiers.

I have no problem with divulging my e-mail details in selective cases; the worst that can happen is that you are bombarded by junk mail, which can easily be trashed. I never give my banking details and a personal e-mail address alone cannot be used to access them. I frequently order books, CD's and DVD's from Amazon, but the account number I use is that of a special account I have which has a low monthly limit, which is the maximum that could be stolen if the number fell into the wrong hands. (In any case, Amazon's security system seems solid enough.)
"The war of peoples will be more terrible than those of kings."
- Winston Churchill (1901)
User avatar
GregB
 
Posts: 15464
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:23 am
Location: Barcelona, Spain

Re: Unnecessary cruelty to animals

Postby Pondero » July 21st, 2015, 9:32 am

GregB wrote:
Sprocket wrote:Not if it's posted without a stamp, it won't - you'll just get it back marked "refused".

That occurred to me, too - and, unlike Steve, I'm unfamiliar with postal norms!

Far fewer people would take the trouble to write - or type - a letter and post it, in my view, especially in this age of high speed social network communications (deplorable, but there it is.) As for an online form letter, it would still need individual identification details for it to be effective - and despatched - and that means an e-mail, or other, address. I do think an online petition is the best way of garnering wide support, especially beyond frontiers.

I have no problem with divulging my e-mail details in selective cases; the worst that can happen is that you are bombarded by junk mail, which can easily be trashed. I never give my banking details and a personal e-mail address alone cannot be used to access them. I frequently order books, CD's and DVD's from Amazon, but the account number I use is that of a special account I have which has a low monthly limit, which is the maximum that could be stolen if the number fell into the wrong hands. (In any case, Amazon's security system seems solid enough.)


Strange, Sprocket, because in Canada a letter to an MP addressed to the House of Commons, Ottawa, does not require a stamp. I thought the mother of Parliaments would have the same.
I didn't mean email an on line letter Greg. I meant copy the online letter and mail it through the Royal Mail. That is for those people who can't be bothered (or in some few cases) are unable to write a letter in plain English and yet feel strongly about cruelty to animals being wrong.
I think that if , your Prime Minister,Cameron received 100,000 letters through the Royal Mail he would sit up and take notice, but he will ignore a petition.
Last edited by Pondero on July 21st, 2015, 1:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If your mind is your brain and your brain is just material , would you rely on it?
John Lennox
User avatar
Pondero
 
Posts: 12407
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:03 am
Location: Etobicoke,Ontario, Canada

Re: Unnecessary cruelty to animals

Postby Sprocket » July 21st, 2015, 9:35 am

I'm pretty sure that isn't the case here. MPs writing to their constituents get free postage, but not vice-versa.
The idiot who, in railway carriages, talks on a mobile phone
We only suffer to ride on the buffer of a Virgin Train, alone.
W.S.Gilbert, modernised.
User avatar
Sprocket
 
Posts: 15782
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:21 am
Location: Hemel Hempstead, Herts.

Re: Unnecessary cruelty to animals

Postby GregB » July 21st, 2015, 4:23 pm

I think that if , your Prime Minister,Cameron received 100,000 letters through the Royal Mail he would sit up and take notice, but he will ignore a petition.

Unrealistically hypothetical, Pondero. You don't seem to realise that these days most people do not write letters, lamentable as that may be, and there is no way that 100,000 people out there are going to do so, free post or not. I mean, for good or bad, we're in 2015, not 1965, and now it's all e-mails, facebook and twitter. Not to mention the fact that a sackful of letters would get nowhere near the PM past his secretaries given to such laborious tasks.

Here's an extract from an e-mail I've received from the organiser of the petition, Emma Hart:
"20 jul 2015 — I am so thrilled that this petition has exceeded 350,000 signatures!"
Letter writers wouldn't remotely get anywhere near that number and the ink would still be drying on the letters of those few anyway.

You've said nothing about my observations about the few risks of disclosing personal e-mail imformation, but I stand by what I've said, not least from fifteen trouble-free years of personal experience on the Internet.
"The war of peoples will be more terrible than those of kings."
- Winston Churchill (1901)
User avatar
GregB
 
Posts: 15464
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:23 am
Location: Barcelona, Spain

Re: Unnecessary cruelty to animals

Postby Lyn » July 21st, 2015, 6:11 pm

I was thinking that people wouldn't write letters too, Greg. It is unrealistic to expect them to and, as you say, the PM isn't going to read them all anyway.

However I do agree with Pondy up to a point. I always felt that I didn't want my name and address 'out there'. A few years ago I signed an online petition about an issue on which I felt strongly and nothing dreadful happened so I was happy to sign this one. Apparently someone only has to google a name to find out where the person lives (never done it, was told so), can't imagine anyone being that interested in where I live, certainly not now, apart from the fact that there must be many people with name which is not unusual.
Lyn
 
Posts: 45930
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:25 am

Next

Return to In depth

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest