ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 27th December 2019, 04:29 PM   #161
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 21,468
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
* For those who might not be aware, the RSPCA (the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) is not merely a charity
Years ago, they had those commercials of the stray kitten saying "where's my mummy" and it cost me a few pounds. Mrs. carlito has a big heart.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2019, 04:35 PM   #162
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6,071
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
A chicken lives according to its nature. A fox lives according to its nature. A man lives according to its nature. Who are we to pass judgement on the nature of things?
The kind that live in societies. I want to encourage people to use physical force only as a last resort because i don't want to live in a violent society.

Were someone to try and break into your home yet they got stuck in a window frame, or something ridiculous like that, you suddenly don't get some carte blanche freedom to kill or hurt them (or at least you shouldn't, I'm sure summarily executing a helpless would-be burglar is probably legal somewhere in America). A fox's life isn't worth as much as a humans, but the same principle should apply. There are plenty of good reasons to kill wild animals, but if his tweets are any indication this was not one of those.
__________________
We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr

Last edited by Arcade22; 27th December 2019 at 04:39 PM.
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2019, 04:58 PM   #163
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,347
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
If your explanation wasn't about the word vicious in relation to foxes what was it about? The only other animal talked about in this thread is chickens.
Being trapped in wire?

You know

The topic of the thread
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2019, 04:59 PM   #164
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,740
Looks like Maugham has taken a break from Twitter over the past 24+ hours. I'd say he's either been well-advised in this respect, or he's (finally) given himself some good advice....
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2019, 05:03 PM   #165
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,740
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
Being trapped in wire?

You know

The topic of the thread


Not wire. At least not per the account given by Maugham himself. Netting.

A fox which gets itself entangled in netting is very unlikely (IMO) to suffer any significant physical injury (let alone any life-threatening injury), though it's likely to work itself into a considerable amount of distress. And if that's the case, Maugham cannot even claim to have been putting the fox out of its misery by battering it with the baseball bat until it died (though it's worth reiterating that even had the fox suffered some serious physical injury, it would still have been wrong - and illegal - to administer the coup de grace with a baseball bat to the head)
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2019, 05:07 PM   #166
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,740
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Worse! It is actually pronounced “Maudlin”.





not a true story

It's almost as strange as that: his surname (Maugham) is pronounced "Morm" (it's actually not quite pronounced like that, but it's the closest I could think of using standard pronunciation comparators, and it's pretty close)
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2019, 05:10 PM   #167
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,347
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Not wire. At least not per the account given by Maugham himself. Netting.

A fox which gets itself entangled in netting is very unlikely (IMO) to suffer any significant physical injury (let alone any life-threatening injury), though it's likely to work itself into a considerable amount of distress. And if that's the case, Maugham cannot even claim to have been putting the fox out of its misery by battering it with the baseball bat until it died (though it's worth reiterating that even had the fox suffered some serious physical injury, it would still have been wrong - and illegal - to administer the coup de grace with a baseball bat to the head)
Yes but it is likely to get vicious when approached

But I agree the dude should not have just hammered it and tweet it like a privileged idiot on a look how manly I am crusade.
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2019, 05:14 PM   #168
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 54,422
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
I know! I’ve seen Watership Down AND Monty Python’s Holy Grail. And the Frozen Planet scene with the orcas hunting seals.
Right? I wasn't even joking, really. Rabbits are horrible to each other. Male rabbits fight, and the winner castrates the loser by biting his nads off! Usually the loser bleeds to death from it, but even if he survives he won't be competing for mates or siring offspring to compete with the winner's offspring. And I read about orca killing great white sharks simply for fun, they ram them from below. They don't eat them, they're just doing it for pleasure. It takes a lot of assholery from something to get me to side with great white sharks, but orca manage it. I think that, like pandas, orcas get away with undeserved love simply because they happen to have a visually pleasing coloration! If pandas were solid brown they'd have died out long ago and nobody would miss them. If orca were pure white or black they'd be seen as the murderous thugs they are!
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2019, 05:24 PM   #169
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,347
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Right? I wasn't even joking, really. Rabbits are horrible to each other. Male rabbits fight, and the winner castrates the loser by biting his nads off! Usually the loser bleeds to death from it, but even if he survives he won't be competing for mates or siring offspring to compete with the winner's offspring. And I read about orca killing great white sharks simply for fun, they ram them from below. They don't eat them, they're just doing it for pleasure. It takes a lot of assholery from something to get me to side with great white sharks, but orca manage it. I think that, like pandas, orcas get away with undeserved love simply because they happen to have a visually pleasing coloration! If pandas were solid brown they'd have died out long ago and nobody would miss them. If orca were pure white or black they'd be seen as the murderous thugs they are!
There are some pretty ugly things in nature

There is a parasitic wasp that stings cockroaches, simultaneously laying young in it.

The young grow and take over the cockroaches brain, while leaving it's ability to walk and kind of use it as their personal vehicle.

You have to give god big ups for sick humour if they existed

https://www.iflscience.com/plants-an...oxic-cocktail/

Quote:
With two stings the cockroach is left with the ability to walk, but is entirely robbed of the power to initiate its own movement. The wasp, now tired after administering two stings, regains its energy by cutting off the ends of the cockroach’s antennae, and drinking its blood. Revitalised, it then latches on to the stung cockroach’s antennae and, much like an obedient toddler being lead to his first day of school, the submissive insect follows the wasp’s orders.
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2019, 05:31 PM   #170
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 90,430
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
Being trapped in wire?



You know



The topic of the thread


Which would then have nothing to do with the definition you provided.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2019, 05:34 PM   #171
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 54,422
The fact is, we anthropomorphize animals because that's how humans think: it's really difficult to not project our own humanity onto other things. If animals were humans we'd lock them up for being sociopathic murderous jerks, or institutionalize them for being insane. So yeah, it's horrible of a human to needlessly bash a fox to pieces. But honestly the fox wasn't a saint and it's a little ridiculous to oversympathize with it. Be honest: if we didn't find the physical looks of a fox to be cute would we care this much? If it had been a mole wouldn't the fuss be a lot smaller? If it had been a big Australian spider we'd be criticizing the man for not using fire on it.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2019, 05:39 PM   #172
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,347
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Which would then have nothing to do with the definition you provided.
That is fine Darat

You are right

Everything you have said I agree with wholeheartedly.

Thanks
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2019, 07:21 PM   #173
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,697
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Right? I wasn't even joking, really. Rabbits are horrible to each other. Male rabbits fight, and the winner castrates the loser by biting his nads off! Usually the loser bleeds to death from it, but even if he survives he won't be competing for mates or siring offspring to compete with the winner's offspring. And I read about orca killing great white sharks simply for fun, they ram them from below. They don't eat them, they're just doing it for pleasure. It takes a lot of assholery from something to get me to side with great white sharks, but orca manage it. I think that, like pandas, orcas get away with undeserved love simply because they happen to have a visually pleasing coloration! If pandas were solid brown they'd have died out long ago and nobody would miss them. If orca were pure white or black they'd be seen as the murderous thugs they are!

It's humbling to see how clearly we humans lag behind animals in terms of morality.

Rabbits are clearly morally superior to us, because no rabbit would ever use the homophobic slur of 'roostersucker' on another rabbit. Because the rabbit doing the roostersucking is probably a much feared badass, and what he's doing to the rabbit with the rooster is nothing less than a rabbit's worst nightmare.



And Jack Dorsey should get the nobel prize for inventing what is clearly an ******* detector.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2019, 12:20 AM   #174
IsThisTheLife
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 464
Putting aside Jolyon Maughm's (if ever a name needed 'sic' after it, his does) crassness, the reaction to it bespeaks an emotional incontinence so prevalant nowadays. I began to notice this neurotic tendency among the denizens of the decaying former West some years ago, you can see it demonstrated on this very thread.
__________________
"There is no sin except stupidity."
IsThisTheLife is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2019, 12:38 AM   #175
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,347
Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife View Post
Putting aside Jolyon Maughm's (if ever a name needed 'sic' after it, his does) crassness, the reaction to it bespeaks an emotional incontinence so prevalant nowadays. I began to notice this neurotic tendency among the denizens of the decaying former West some years ago, you can see it demonstrated on this very thread.
Disagree.

As much as I get the whole putting things out of their misery from years of growing up on farms etc, the bloke in the opening post just sounded more a dude trying to **** wave over killing an animal and then crapping bricks when he realised someone noticed his tweet and then backtracked like a child.

Which is kind of what entitled people do.
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2019, 01:43 AM   #176
llwyd
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 597
Having grown up in the countryside I find nothing remarkable in the act itself. Sometimes you have to kill wounded or trapped wild animals out of kindness. Of course it might have been unnecessary in this particular instance in which case it would have been rather nasty. Anyway, nature is neither moral nor immoral, it's amoral in a way us humans simply cannot be. And we do have many ethical standards of treatment even of our industrially produced livestock. Very few people advocate unnecessary gratuitous cruelty towards animals
llwyd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2019, 06:23 AM   #177
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 90,430
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
That is fine Darat



You are right



Everything you have said I agree with wholeheartedly.



Thanks
I have asked you questions about what you posted. I am at a loss as to what you now say you agree with me about?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2019, 07:54 AM   #178
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6,071
Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife View Post
Putting aside Jolyon Maughm's (if ever a name needed 'sic' after it, his does) crassness, the reaction to it bespeaks an emotional incontinence so prevalant nowadays. I began to notice this neurotic tendency among the denizens of the decaying former West some years ago, you can see it demonstrated on this very thread.
Feel free to move to Islamdamabad or whatever, where men can be manly and pointlessly kill animals without people batting an eyelid anymore than they did when the weekly suicide bomber blew up 20 people.
__________________
We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2019, 06:10 PM   #179
rockinkt
Graduate Poster
 
rockinkt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,519
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
It is. The law is not against killing but against "causing unnecessary suffering".
Curious as to how spaying or neutering can be considered anything but "unnecessary suffering". After all - unless that specific animal's life is endangered by being able to procreate - why are veterinarians not charged with causing such pain and suffering to innocent animals?
Such needless suffering is horrible and I cannot see how in good conscience any veterinarian could carry out such a wantonly cruel act.
Is it the lure of money?
__________________
"Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." Steve Earle

"I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." Townes Van Zandt
rockinkt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2019, 07:18 PM   #180
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,347
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I have asked you questions about what you posted. I am at a loss as to what you now say you agree with me about?
Everything you ever post

Thanks
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2019, 07:21 PM   #181
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 24,610
Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer View Post
"Vicious" seems to be overly emotive too. The problem with foxes (which would also apply to almost any predator) is that when they get into a run or coop their instinct to take prey doesn't stop after they've killed the first bird, and since the chickens can't escape the fox will slaughter them all. People often ascribe it to cruelty or even wastefulness(!) but of course it's just a natural instinct running into an unnatural situation.
The technical term for this is surplus killing. There is an account of a red fox in Australia killing 74 penguins but not eating much at all.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2019, 08:20 PM   #182
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 22,691
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The objections to this incident seem to be firmly rooted in an appeal to emotion.
Well, yes. Our laws are not simply based on Bentham inspired consequentialist mathematics.
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2019, 08:57 PM   #183
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 54,422
Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post
Well, yes. Our laws are not simply based on Bentham inspired consequentialist mathematics.
How many foxes can be killed per annum before enough people walk away from Omelas to trigger road repairs exceeding the value of the freed-up real estate? The answer comes in at just 19.2 foxes. Assuming that for every fox killing announced on Twitter there are six others unannounced that leaves us with just 2.74 more Twittered fox killings before the UK collapses. However, luckily, it's nearly the end of the calendar year so I think they're safe. The count resets on 1/1.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 11:25 AM   #184
P.J. Denyer
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,476
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
The technical term for this is surplus killing. There is an account of a red fox in Australia killing 74 penguins but not eating much at all.
Thanks, I'll try and remember that little tidbit.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

"Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills
P.J. Denyer is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 12:52 PM   #185
Silly Green Monkey
Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness
 
Silly Green Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,811
Originally Posted by rockinkt View Post
Curious as to how spaying or neutering can be considered anything but "unnecessary suffering". After all - unless that specific animal's life is endangered by being able to procreate - why are veterinarians not charged with causing such pain and suffering to innocent animals?
Such needless suffering is horrible and I cannot see how in good conscience any veterinarian could carry out such a wantonly cruel act.
Is it the lure of money?
Hence why the animal undergoing the procedure is sedated, to prevent pain. Then they're prescribed surgery aftercare to ease pain over the next few days.

Prove that animals suffer by not being able to procreate before trying to charge veterinarians.
__________________
Normal is just a stereotype.
Silly Green Monkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 01:30 PM   #186
deadrose
Illuminator
 
deadrose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: the wet side of the mountains
Posts: 3,338
Foxes cache their kills to eat later. In most cases, if you find killed but untouched animals, you've simply interrupted the fox before she could retrieve them. This is especially true of vixens with kits.
deadrose is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 01:34 PM   #187
Shepherd
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 330
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Update (such as it is) on the RSPCA* investigation into Maugham's self-alleged actions:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...gham-kills-fox


* For those who might not be aware, the RSPCA (the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) is not merely a charity, a practical aid organization, and a lobbyist for animal welfare. In fact, it also wields a considerable amount of legal power - it's one of the few entities (alongside the obvious one (The Crown) and entities such as the Health and Safety Executive) which has the authority to prosecute criminal charges in a Crown Court.
Based upon information I've now seen from multiple sources including from their own website, what you say here about the RSPCA does not appear to be correct. It seems that in actuality they do not have any sort of special prosecutorial privilege whatsoever - nor legal enforcement authority nor police or investigative powers, either, for that matter. They have, however, received criticism from others for maybe having tried to convey such an impression through their dress and behavior and whatnot - but which they have also supposedly denied.

...hmmm...

It appears, then, that they have no more right to bring charges as you would have as an individual. So, I guess you too could "investigate" and have at it, also, if you really wanted!

To be honest, and from what I've read from this side of the pond, they sound a bit like PETA but with a fake badge and uniform trying to pass themselves off as the police - though with maybe a bit more actual knowledge of legal procedure for when they do have solicitors (lawyers) go after someone in court and/or present information to "proper" authorities and/or, of course, con the gullible into divulging information they need not share. ...and considering your seemingly misinformed assertion, maybe such antics work?

Historically it seems those in this organization were wearing uniforms with emblems of various "ranks" before a real police force was even a thing, btw. I guess it's important to dress for success. You wouldn't want to look unofficial when trying to get people to divulge information you might believe to be incriminating. ..lol


Quote:
...

The RSPCA brings private prosecution (a right available to any civilian) against those it believes, based on independent veterinary opinion, have caused neglect to an animal under laws such as the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

...

All prosecutions are brought via independent solicitors acting for the RSPCA, as the association has no legal enforcement powers or authority in its own right.

...

While the Protection of Animals Act 1911 provided a power of arrest for police, the British courts determined that Parliament did not intend any other organisation, such as the RSPCA, to be empowered under the Act and that the RSPCA therefore does not possess police-like powers of arrest, of entry or of search (Line v RSPCA, 1902).

...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_...lty_to_Animals

Quote:
Society Inspectors have NO special legal powers whatsoever. They have NO special powers to arrest offenders. They have NO right to enter your home to inspect your animals or to demand that you answer any of their questions.
https://www.doglistener.co.uk/rspca-...se-them-access


Quote:

Everyone in England and Wales has the right to bring a private prosecution against someone who they believe has committed an offence.
...

What prosecution powers does the RSPCA have?

The RSPCA exercises its right to act as private prosecutor under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

The charity has no legal enforcement powers or authority in its own right, so all prosecutions are brought via independent solicitors acting for the RSPCA.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-37987213

Quote:
There are a number of organisations that regularly prosecute cases before the courts of England and Wales but they do so as private individuals, using the right of any individual to bring a private prosecution. One example is the RSPCA.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidanc...e-prosecutions


Quote:
We investigate and prosecute animal cruelty reported to us by members of the public who are concerned about the welfare of animals.

...

The power to prosecute

Everyone in England and Wales has the right to bring a private prosecution against someone who they believe has committed an offence.
https://www.rspca.org.uk/whatwedo/en...ty/prosecution

Quote:
We, unlike the police, have no special powers to gather evidence.
https://www.rspca.org.uk/whatwedo/en...igatingcruelty



Now, if I've somehow overlooked something and there is actually a source that you think might back up your apparently unsubstantiated assertion, I'd appreciate you directing me to it, please. I'm certainly no expert on the English justice system and/or law inforcement, and so would readily admit that I'm mistaken if I am. It's just that what you and some others are saying and the attitudes you appear to be displaying don't seem to jibe with the information that I can find.
Shepherd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 02:05 PM   #188
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 16,581
Originally Posted by rockinkt View Post
Curious as to how spaying or neutering can be considered anything but "unnecessary suffering". After all - unless that specific animal's life is endangered by being able to procreate - why are veterinarians not charged with causing such pain and suffering to innocent animals?
Such needless suffering is horrible and I cannot see how in good conscience any veterinarian could carry out such a wantonly cruel act.
Is it the lure of money?
I do not see how this applies to dogs and cats, who are usually neutered or spayed under anesthesia in veterinary suites using minimal impact surgical methods and appear to recover quickly and with minimal observable discomfort. One could also argue for example that an unspayed mom cat experiences at last as much pain when giving birth or an unneutered Tom cat when driven to fighting others.

Are you referring to bulls and stallions? My understanding is that the methods are much cruder in these cases, but I don’t really know for certain.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 02:09 PM   #189
trustbutverify
Philosopher
 
trustbutverify's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,862
Originally Posted by rockinkt View Post
Curious as to how spaying or neutering can be considered anything but "unnecessary suffering". After all - unless that specific animal's life is endangered by being able to procreate - why are veterinarians not charged with causing such pain and suffering to innocent animals?
Such needless suffering is horrible and I cannot see how in good conscience any veterinarian could carry out such a wantonly cruel act.
Is it the lure of money?
You've convinced me. The movement to reduce cruelty to non-humans must be halted.
__________________
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -- Mahatma Gandhi

Wollen owns the stage
trustbutverify is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 02:47 PM   #190
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 16,581
Looks to me that with perhaps one or two glaring exceptions (perhaps only seeking to get a rise out of other members) most posters feel that if the fox “needed” to be killed it should have been killed with little or no suffering. This goal is something most of us, as human beings, see as a manifestation of the best of our natures. And is also the law in the case of the OP.

However although a blow to the head can cause instant unconsciousness that is rare for an untrained person to effectively and consistently achieve. Especially with a frightened animal caught and writhing about. It is not a reliable form of euthanasia.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 04:08 PM   #191
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,740
Originally Posted by Shepherd View Post
Based upon information I've now seen from multiple sources including from their own website, what you say here about the RSPCA does not appear to be correct. It seems that in actuality they do not have any sort of special prosecutorial privilege whatsoever - nor legal enforcement authority nor police or investigative powers, either, for that matter. They have, however, received criticism from others for maybe having tried to convey such an impression through their dress and behavior and whatnot - but which they have also supposedly denied.

...hmmm...

It appears, then, that they have no more right to bring charges as you would have as an individual. So, I guess you too could "investigate" and have at it, also, if you really wanted!

To be honest, and from what I've read from this side of the pond, they sound a bit like PETA but with a fake badge and uniform trying to pass themselves off as the police - though with maybe a bit more actual knowledge of legal procedure for when they do have solicitors (lawyers) go after someone in court and/or present information to "proper" authorities and/or, of course, con the gullible into divulging information they need not share. ...and considering your seemingly misinformed assertion, maybe such antics work?

Historically it seems those in this organization were wearing uniforms with emblems of various "ranks" before a real police force was even a thing, btw. I guess it's important to dress for success. You wouldn't want to look unofficial when trying to get people to divulge information you might believe to be incriminating. ..lol



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_...lty_to_Animals



https://www.doglistener.co.uk/rspca-...se-them-access




https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-37987213


https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidanc...e-prosecutions




https://www.rspca.org.uk/whatwedo/en...ty/prosecution



https://www.rspca.org.uk/whatwedo/en...igatingcruelty



Now, if I've somehow overlooked something and there is actually a source that you think might back up your apparently unsubstantiated assertion, I'd appreciate you directing me to it, please. I'm certainly no expert on the English justice system and/or law inforcement, and so would readily admit that I'm mistaken if I am. It's just that what you and some others are saying and the attitudes you appear to be displaying don't seem to jibe with the information that I can find.


Wow, this was quite an aggressive attack on a mere footnote

While the RSPCA does indeed prosecute as private prosecutions, it's not quite as black-and-white as that. The RSPCA is one of the official prosecuting authorities in England & Wales, and it carries its authority to prosecute animal welfare charges from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1932.

The RSPCA has its own investigators, but on their own they have no statutory powers. However, police will (almost without exception) accompany RSPCA inspectors and enforce entry, searches and arrests if so requested. So that in itself makes an RSPCA inspector substantially different from "the man in the street".


Anyhow, as I said, it was only ever a footnote. Seems like it's important to you though, so if you prefer to believe that the RSPCA has no more powers and authority than you or I to investigate/prosecute suspected animal welfare offences, well go right ahead
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 04:16 PM   #192
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,740
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Looks to me that with perhaps one or two glaring exceptions (perhaps only seeking to get a rise out of other members) most posters feel that if the fox “needed” to be killed it should have been killed with little or no suffering. This goal is something most of us, as human beings, see as a manifestation of the best of our natures. And is also the law in the case of the OP.

However although a blow to the head can cause instant unconsciousness that is rare for an untrained person to effectively and consistently achieve. Especially with a frightened animal caught and writhing about. It is not a reliable form of euthanasia.

Exactly this.

I'd go further though: if - as Maugham claimed in a follow-up tweet - the fox had merely become entangled in netting, then it's a reasonable likelihood that the fox had suffered no serious physical injury at all (as opposed to, for example, if it had become ensnared on metal wire or barbed wire). It's a fair bet that the fox would have been extremely distressed, and it's a similarly fair bet that the fox would have reacted aggressively to being approached - both of these are entirely natural reactions for a wild animal which has become trapped and which is being approached by a potential predator.

So I'd argue that it's a reasonable assumption that Maugham came across a fox which was trapped and distressed, and which was and behaving in an aggressinve manner towards him - but which actually had no serious physical injuries. In any case, regardless of the state of physical injury of the fox (and it certainly can't have been anywhere near death, since Maugham reported its aggression towards him and his chickens....), you correctly point out that it was neither ethical nor legal for Maugham to have set about the fox with a baseball bat until it was dead. If that's what happened.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 04:31 PM   #193
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,347
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Exactly this.

I'd go further though: if - as Maugham claimed in a follow-up tweet - the fox had merely become entangled in netting, then it's a reasonable likelihood that the fox had suffered no serious physical injury at all (as opposed to, for example, if it had become ensnared on metal wire or barbed wire). It's a fair bet that the fox would have been extremely distressed, and it's a similarly fair bet that the fox would have reacted aggressively to being approached - both of these are entirely natural reactions for a wild animal which has become trapped and which is being approached by a potential predator.

So I'd argue that it's a reasonable assumption that Maugham came across a fox which was trapped and distressed, and which was and behaving in an aggressinve manner towards him - but which actually had no serious physical injuries. In any case, regardless of the state of physical injury of the fox (and it certainly can't have been anywhere near death, since Maugham reported its aggression towards him and his chickens....), you correctly point out that it was neither ethical nor legal for Maugham to have set about the fox with a baseball bat until it was dead. If that's what happened.
Pretty much this in a nut shell

Though I would add the unlikely scenario that is may have been trapped in netting that it was massively caught up causing likelihood of slowly being strangulated or something, but then this is pretty unlikely.

Dude should have just rung a vet at the end of the day and not pretended he is Rambo.
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 04:36 PM   #194
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,607
Originally Posted by rockinkt View Post
Curious as to how spaying or neutering can be considered anything but "unnecessary suffering". After all - unless that specific animal's life is endangered by being able to procreate - why are veterinarians not charged with causing such pain and suffering to innocent animals?
Such needless suffering is horrible and I cannot see how in good conscience any veterinarian could carry out such a wantonly cruel act.
Is it the lure of money?

Whether you like it or not, surgery (including "elective" surgery) is part of the reason the word "unnecessary" is in the law. The law recognises that some suffering is necessary, for example when a sick animal has surgery aimed at making it feel better.

As regards spaying and neutering, the welfare benefits in the medium to long term are well recognised, in particular the preventative effect as regards conditions such as pyometra and FIV. It's not all for the owner's or society's benefit. There's also the fact that older tomcats are demonstrably happier when their urge to run off and engage in fights they're inevitably going to lose has gone.

Now, what "suffering" is involved in spaying and neutering? Vets do use anaesthesia, you know. So a small needle-prick, followed by waking up feeling a little groggy. That's it. Analgesia may be used at that stage, although it's debatable how necessary that is. Most puppies and kittens are exhibiting normal behaviour within a very short time after coming round.

Are you simply being anthropomorphic and imagining that an animal is capable of regretting the fact that it doesn't want to mate and/or is infertile? Animals are simply not sophisticated enough to get upset because they don't want to do something.

I have read tirades from one vet in particular who has carried on a one-man crusade against what he terms (probably accurately, as the term should not be emotive) the "sexual mulilation" of pets. He's in a minority of approximately one. Everyone else recognises the enormous benefits for the pet owners, society as a whole and the individual pets.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 04:38 PM   #195
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,607
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
Pretty much this in a nut shell

Though I would add the unlikely scenario that is may have been trapped in netting that it was massively caught up causing likelihood of slowly being strangulated or something, but then this is pretty unlikely.

Dude should have just rung a vet at the end of the day and not pretended he is Rambo.

Rung the RSPCA. They're actually better equipped to handle this than a vet in private practice. His local vet would probably just have given him the RSPCA's number.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 04:40 PM   #196
P.J. Denyer
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,476
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Looks to me that with perhaps one or two glaring exceptions (perhaps only seeking to get a rise out of other members) most posters feel that if the fox “needed” to be killed it should have been killed with little or no suffering. This goal is something most of us, as human beings, see as a manifestation of the best of our natures. And is also the law in the case of the OP.

However although a blow to the head can cause instant unconsciousness that is rare for an untrained person to effectively and consistently achieve. Especially with a frightened animal caught and writhing about. It is not a reliable form of euthanasia.

Have you ever seen a fox's skull? To be honest I would have thought a solid blow with a baseball bat is more likely to be fatal than cause unconsciousness, but everything else you've written I agree. However bare in mind that we are talking about a species that a significant number of our current ruling party and their supporters would like to be able to legally kill by having them ripped apart by dogs, for amusement (and some claimed justification about controlling numbers that really doesn't hold water). That should give you some idea of the legal protection afforded a fox.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

"Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills
P.J. Denyer is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 04:40 PM   #197
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,347
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Rung the RSPCA. They're actually better equipped to handle this than a vet in private practice. His local vet would probably just have given him the RSPCA's number.
True actually.

They are mobile and have the gear
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 04:51 PM   #198
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,607
I remember doing a post mortem on a fox that had been found dead in someone's garden, nowhere near a road or vehicle access. It was severely injured, including a fractured skull. There was also a lot of unclotted blood in its body cavities, which didn't ring the bells it should have for me at the time. The injuries didn't really tally with being hit by a car but my best provisional guess was that it had perhaps been hit and then had run some distance before collapsing and dying.

Fortunately it was standard practice to collect toxicology samples from wildlife post mortems to screen for pesticide contamination and possible illegal bait. This fox's results caused one huge light-bulb moment. It was full to the eyeballs with dicoumarin - the rat poison Warfarin. That was the cause of all the unclotted blood. Warfarin causes its victims to bleed to death. (And this appears to be classified as necessary suffering as Warfarin is legal to use against rats. The suffering may not be desperately severe in fact.)

So why the injuries, why the fractured skull? Final conclusion was that someone had found the fox moribund and had despatched it by hitting it over the head with a shovel or something. Maybe it was a simple attempt at a mercy killing by someone who found a dying animal. If the fox had eaten rats that had died of Warfarin poisoning, that could have done it. Or maybe the Warfarin had been set deliberately to catch the fox and I'm actually not sure if that's legal or not. If that was a deliberate act and the person who set the poison then did the hitting-over-the-head part, that would have been illegal. I think I would have been arguing on the defence side if the poisoning was accidental and the blow to the head was intended to end the animal's suffering, but it would have been an interesting case.

As I think it was the owner of the premises who had called the SSPCA on finding the fox dead, I imagine he could be exonerated. I'm really not sure what exactly happened to lead up to the death. Nobody was ever identified who had been involved with the fox before death. It went down in the poisoning statistics as an adverse coumarin-related wildlife fatality.

Many lay people don't realise how much protection wildlife has, and that there are statutory bodies that enforce this protection, respond to and investigate suspicious incidents, and monitor adverce events. You'd think a lawyer might have been aware though.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 29th December 2019 at 04:53 PM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 04:53 PM   #199
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,740
Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer View Post
Have you ever seen a fox's skull? To be honest I would have thought a solid blow with a baseball bat is more likely to be fatal than cause unconsciousness, but everything else you've written I agree. However bare in mind that we are talking about a species that a significant number of our current ruling party and their supporters would like to be able to legally kill by having them ripped apart by dogs, for amusement (and some claimed justification about controlling numbers that really doesn't hold water). That should give you some idea of the legal protection afforded a fox.


Well fortunately, the prevailing view within the Conservative party (and the official Conservative Government position) is that the hunting and killing of foxes using hounds is barbaric and inhumane. It's horrific to think that "sports" such as bear baiting and cock fighting used (albeit a couple of hundred years ago...) to be both legal and hugely popular. But times - and attitudes - change.

And in 2019, foxes most certainly DO have a certain amount of legal protection afforded to them. They can only be trapped in a specified small number of ways, and they can only be killed in a specified small number of ways. The prevailing principle is humanity and the avoidance of unnecessary and/or excess suffering on the part of the fox.

One could perhaps even argue that if Maugham was using netting to help prevent foxes attacking his chickens, and since it was this netting which apparently entangled the fox, then this in itself might potentially constitute an offence - since the fox had become trapped in an inhumane manner which caused it excessive distress. But parking that one for a moment, the "remedy" which Maugham apparently chose to apply most certainly falls outside of the legally-prescribed ways in which to kill a fox.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2019, 05:00 PM   #200
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,740
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I remember doing a post mortem on a fox that had been found dead in someone's garden, nowhere near a road or vehicle access. It was severely injured, including a fractured skull. There was also a lot of unclotted blood in its body cavities, which didn't ring the bells it should have for me at the time. The injuries didn't really tally with being hit by a car but my best provisional guess was that it had perhaps been hit and then had run some distance before collapsing and dying.

Fortunately it was standard practice to collect toxicology samples from wildlife post mortems to screen for pesticide contamination and possible illegal bait. This fox's results caused one huge light-bulb moment. It was full to the eyeballs with dicoumarin - the rat poison Warfarin. That was the cause of all the unclotted blood. Warfarin causes its victims to bleed to death. (And this appears to be classified as necessary suffering as Warfarin is legal to use against rats. The suffering may not be desperately severe in fact.)

So why the injuries, why the fractured skull? Final conclusion was that someone had found the fox moribund and had despatched it by hitting it over the head with a shovel or something. Maybe it was a simple attempt at a mercy killing by someone who found a dying animal. If the fox had eaten rats that had died of Warfarin poisoning, that could have done it. Or maybe the Warfarin had been set deliberately to catch the fox and I'm actually not sure if that's legal or not. If that was a deliberate act and the person who set the poison then did the hitting-over-the-head part, that would have been illegal. I think I would have been arguing on the defence side if the poisoning was accidental and the blow to the head was intended to end the animal's suffering, but it would have been an interesting case.

As I think it was the owner of the premises who had called the SSPCA on finding the fox dead, I imagine he could be exonerated. I'm really not sure what exactly happened to lead up to the death. Nobody was ever identified who had been involved with the fox before death. It went down in the poisoning statistics as an adverse coumarin-related wildlife fatality.

Interesting and relevant story - thanks for recounting it.



Quote:
Many lay people don't realise how much protection wildlife has, and that there are statutory bodies that enforce this protection, respond to and investigate suspicious incidents, and monitor adverce events. You'd think a lawyer might have been aware though.

Exactly this. And not only should Maugham been aware of the law (or, at the very least, sensitive to the prospect that what he'd done might not be legal....), his motivation for posting a public message about it on Twitter shows astonishingly poor judgement. Interestingly, Maugham has been totally inactive on Twitter since the point on Boxing Day - only several hours after his first fateful tweet about killing the fox - when he either seems to have had a sudden onset of self-revelation about the hole into which he'd dug himself, or he perhaps was given some urgent advice by someone else.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:29 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.