Enmos
Valued Senior Member
It wouldn't make a difference to me. There's something bigger then individual animals (not talking about pets or captive bred animals).
Why are animal rights suporters so intolerant?
- Thread starter Fenrisulven
- Start date
It wouldn't make a difference to me. There's something bigger then individual animals (not talking about pets or captive bred animals).
Public Opinion
Registered Member
2 actually !
search for annette nally, she took in a rescue dog, looked after it and was prosecuted by the Royal Society for the Persecution of Animal Lovers because they said it was too thin, had they bothered to investigate the dog Holly had some condition that the Society could do nothing to improve the dogs weight so they put it to sleep and didnt even have the decency to inform Mrs Nally, perhaps it was because they were too busy dragging her through the Courts !
Another is PC Jonathan Bell who the Animal SS prosecuted for putting a squashed cat out of its misery with a shovel (they couldnt be bothered to turn up !) they spent £10K's on legal fees only to lose.
Check these REAL CASES OUT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
search for annette nally, she took in a rescue dog, looked after it and was prosecuted by the Royal Society for the Persecution of Animal Lovers because they said it was too thin, had they bothered to investigate the dog Holly had some condition that the Society could do nothing to improve the dogs weight so they put it to sleep and didnt even have the decency to inform Mrs Nally, perhaps it was because they were too busy dragging her through the Courts !
Another is PC Jonathan Bell who the Animal SS prosecuted for putting a squashed cat out of its misery with a shovel (they couldnt be bothered to turn up !) they spent £10K's on legal fees only to lose.
Check these REAL CASES OUT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jonathan bell was found not guilty. Annette Nally found not guilty.
Your (few) real cases are falling a bit flat.
Your (few) real cases are falling a bit flat.
The RSPCA knowingly persecuted innocent people and wasted the court's time and resources. They do have a conviction for perverting the course of justice for just that kind of thing.
Must be your grudge against humanity.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Nope, you have two tries left.
I got it right the first time. It is your nihilistic hatred against your culture, your own species, and yourself.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
One guess left, be careful now. Consider all the options.
faunacation
Registered Member
OK, then try this one disabilitynow.org.uk/latest-news2/news-focus/rspca-quizzed-on-pets
has anyone seen metakron's sock puppets post in any other threads?
guess not probably because they don't.
guess not probably because they don't.
Last edited:
faunacation
Registered Member
If you listen to the File at 4 program you will be able to hear many of the problems I have with that story, as well as further stories. It's the way RSPCA do things, and the heavy handed punitive attitude with which they do them which I find objectionable.
On the subject of pleading guilty - RSPCA prosecutions are private prosecutions thus in some places huge costs are awarded against somebody if found guilty, whereas if the same person were to plead guilty this would mean they would not face that. Now even if a person is not guilty there are a myriad of reasons when prosecuted by the RSPCA why they might expect to be found guilty, as the RSPCA are often taken as the experts who can do no wrong. Ruth Downey fought her charges but ended up being found guilty anyway. It's definitely a test case and is pushing all the boundaries. The magistrate directed no conviction be recorded against her and she was not fined, despite the outcome. She was charged with multiple cases of aggravated cruelty, yet it was the RSPCA who killed the healthy animals as they were running away. But costs were awarded against her of just under $300 000. Don't you think the next person who knows they are not guilty will think long and hard about fighting the charges?
For some more on pleading guilty despite innocence, have a look at this one
://bewarerspca.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=50 and just add http before the ://
Because after nearly 40 years of trying to be nice about protecting animals and getting nowhere they want toKICK SOME ASS NOW! No, not donkeys either!
Last edited:
faunacation
Registered Member
Just let me clarify. She was found guilty (wrongly I believe) but the magistrate ordered no conviction be recorded and he didn't impose a fine.
And he couldn't find the latitude to find her not guilty? This gives the RSPCA permission to continue to commit heinous crimes against the citizens of Australia. They should not receive one penny and their lawyers should be up on ethics charges.
what's all the hoopla about anyway?
let's say that we do grant animals rights. what then?
do the animals represent themselves? no.
a human must represent them. a human speaks for them.
so in other words a human is saying what is right for the animal, the animal has no say whatsoever.
all you have done is make a mockery of a system and lined some greedy lawyers pockets.
let's say that we do grant animals rights. what then?
do the animals represent themselves? no.
a human must represent them. a human speaks for them.
so in other words a human is saying what is right for the animal, the animal has no say whatsoever.
all you have done is make a mockery of a system and lined some greedy lawyers pockets.
MetaKron:
I note that you dodged the question. I'll ask again. I'll even make it more specific for you.
Do you believe that people who want to hurt animals for pleasure should be allowed to do so?
A simple yes or no should suffice.
voyager:
Will you also eat human babies until they walk into a courtroom and demand their rights?
Yes. Ideally, all humans then speak out for them.
I don't think you comprehend what a right is. A right is a recognition of an interest, supported by law.
Do you believe that prosecuting people who hurt animals for their pleasure makes a mockery of the legal system?
I note that you dodged the question. I'll ask again. I'll even make it more specific for you.
Do you believe that people who want to hurt animals for pleasure should be allowed to do so?
A simple yes or no should suffice.
voyager:
Will you also eat human babies until they walk into a courtroom and demand their rights?
Yes. Ideally, all humans then speak out for them.
I don't think you comprehend what a right is. A right is a recognition of an interest, supported by law.
Do you believe that prosecuting people who hurt animals for their pleasure makes a mockery of the legal system?
They should not be allowed to do so. What does this have to do with the persecution of a person who was doing the best she could to keep her cattle healthy with the resources that she had, or the persecution of someone who used flea powder on a dog when it needed other treatment, or the persecution of a man who waited to see if a damaged tail needed treatment?
On the other hand, the RSPCA went to Ruth Downey's place and gut-shot her cattle for the sheer fun of it, right out of A Clockwork Orange. They should not be allowed to do that and they should be in jail on multiple felony counts.
I don't doubt it, and they should be prosecuted for felony destruction of property.