Packham & Caroline Lucas resign from RSPCA

[Miserableolgit]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyv381edvg9o
 

"Wildlife TV presenter Chris Packham and former Green Party MP Caroline Lucas have quit as president and vice-president of the RSPCA after a campaign group alleged animal cruelty at some of the charity's approved list of abattoirs.

Animal Rising released footage from facilities as part of its investigation into the RSPCA's "Assured Scheme" which certifies farms, food producers and food retailers that meet its specific animal welfare standards.

In response, the RSPCA said it takes allegations of poor animal welfare "incredibly seriously".

The charity said it was "simply not true" that it had not taken urgent action, adding unannounced visits had been significantly increased, and use of bodyworn cameras and CCTV was also being explored.

In its most recent investigation, Animal Rising singled out four abattoirs where it said "experts found systemic animal cruelty". 

It said its investigators had found that "in one slaughterhouse 85% of pigs were stunned incorrectly, leaving animals conscious during slaughter, and in another 96% of cows were prodded with an electric goad, a practice banned by the RSPCA, and 46% of cows showed clear signs of panic or escape behaviours. 

"There was also frequent verbal and physical abuse from workers, and animals watching in terror and panic as other animals were killed or stunned in front of them."

In a statement posted on Animal Rising's website, Packham said he was prioritising his "love for animals above all else" and was stepping down immediately, following the "irrefutable evidence of abuse uncovered".

He accused the RSPCA of making "no meaningful change" after "years of raising concerns about salmon farming and tirelessly pushing for reform within the Assured Schemes".

"I believe the charity has lost sight of its mandate to protect all animals from cruelty and suffering," he added.

In a separate statement, Lucas said: "The recent horrific revelations of abuse at RSPCA-approved slaughterhouses, filmed undercover by Animal Rising, were the final straw for me. 

"The systemic cruelty exposed was unbearable to witness. 

"While the RSPCA's response was to suspend the implicated facilities and launch yet another investigation, they failed to confront the deeper flaws of the scheme itself. 

"This approach not only fails to uphold their own standards but also risks misleading the public and legitimising cruelty." 

In a statement, the RSPCA said: "We agree with Chris and Caroline on so many issues and have achieved so much together for animals but we differ on how best to address the incredibly complex and difficult issue of farmed animal welfare.

"We have discussed our work to drive up farmed animal welfare standards openly at length with them on many occasions and it is simply not true that we have not taken urgent action. 

"We took allegations of poor welfare incredibly seriously, launching an independent review of 200 farms which concluded that it was 'operating effectively' to improve animal welfare. 

"We are taking strong steps to improve oversight of welfare, implementing the recommendations in full including significantly increasing unannounced visits, and exploring technology such as bodyworn cameras and CCTV, supported by £2m of investment." 

 

[dessyb]

he will 😂not be missed

[Tedward]

Where’s do the RSPCA sit regarding halal and kosher slaughter ?
Tedward.

[Gordon R]

Nowhere - looking at these might lose support from their followers. Easier to just ignore it.

[hushpower]

Brown Envelopes still in use i see

[old man]

2 hours ago, Tedward said:

Where’s do the RSPCA sit regarding halal and kosher slaughter ?
Tedward.

Religious requirements, sadly accepted here.

[Sweet11-87]

Well people want cheap meat and will kick off if prices went up, but want animals to live full natural lives and then die in their sleep before they get to the plate.  68 million of us on this island that need feeding and for some reason we shooters are villainized. obviously we cant feed the whole population out of shooting but we take out our requirements and pressure off the factory slaughterhouses.

idk about anyone else but if my options were  an intensive farm followed by the slaughterhouse, pulled to bits by a predator, starvation, infection/disease or shot i know what option id take. old age is off the table for animals unless its a pet

Edited December 21, 2024 by Sweet11-87

[Tedward]

“Religious requirements, sadly accepted here.”

so religion trumps animal welfare, surely it’s either humane or inhumane ?

confused.Tedward.
 

 

[old man]

18 hours ago, Tedward said:

“Religious requirements, sadly accepted here.”

so religion trumps animal welfare, surely it’s either humane or inhumane ?

confused.Tedward.
 

 

There seems no confusion just a factual situation?

For the record I don't like it either.

[Tedward]

Hi OM, 

probably me being overly simplistic, my view is that in law something is either right or wrong - hence the reason for that law.
If “humane” in this instance requires initial stunning of the animal, then that’s it in black and white.

Anything else by default is “inhumane” and illegal.

Perhaps I’m just not into political and religious nuances, and that’s why I’m confused ?

cheers, Tedward.

[old man]

58 minutes ago, Tedward said:

Hi OM, 

probably me being overly simplistic, my view is that in law something is either right or wrong - hence the reason for that law.
If “humane” in this instance requires initial stunning of the animal, then that’s it in black and white.

Anything else by default is “inhumane” and illegal.

Perhaps I’m just not into political and religious nuances, and that’s why I’m confused ?

cheers, Tedward.

To seek a definitive definition of "humane" you may need the infinite wisdom of Methuzalah? Then the courts will disagree?

 

[London Best]

I absolutely fail to see how stunning an animal first is more humane than direct slaughter with a captive bolt.

[old man]

3 hours ago, London Best said:

I absolutely fail to see how stunning an animal first is more humane than direct slaughter with a captive bolt.

Sorry, not following your train there sir, please elucidate.

[old man]

16 hours ago, Tedward said:

Hi OM, 

probably me being overly simplistic, my view is that in law something is either right or wrong - hence the reason for that law.
If “humane” in this instance requires initial stunning of the animal, then that’s it in black and white.

Anything else by default is “inhumane” and illegal.

Perhaps I’m just not into political and religious nuances, and that’s why I’m confused ?

cheers, Tedward.

Interesting information from the Humane Slaughter Association and Prof Temple Grandin from USA?

[Tedward]

Intriguing lady, could she be described as a savant ?

[Tedward]

Found the RSPCA’s stance :

“Pre-stunning ensures that an animal is unconscious and cannot feel pain before slaughter up until the point of death. Animals that haven't been pre-stunned:

Feel pain during the neck cutting process and up until they lose consciousness (through loss of blood)

Experience a delay in loss of consciousness (e.g. up to two minutes in cattle)

Are subjected to unnecessary pain, suffering and distress.

Current UK law requires all livestock to be stunned before slaughter, so they don't feel pain at the time of killing. However, there is an exemption from this requirement that permits non-stun slaughter for religious purposes - to meet the demand of Muslim and Jewish communities.

We believe that all animals should be stunned before slaughter. Evidence shows that slaughter without pre-stunning can cause unneeded suffering.

We oppose the slaughter of any animal without first ensuring it's unable to feel pain and distress.

We're pressing for law changes to improve animal welfare at slaughter. Until this happens, we propose:

UK Jewish and Muslim communities review their slaughter practices

Meat produced from animals not stunned before slaughter should be clearly labelled to allow consumer choice.”

[old man]

3 hours ago, Tedward said:

Intriguing lady, could she be described as a savant ?

Possibly?

[JohnfromUK]

There is nothing humane in religion.

Millions have died over the centuries in 'religious wars', hundreds of thousands tortured and persecuted for their beliefs, still (probably) the main cause for terrorism in the world today.

I can't imagine animals getting any 'good deal' from religion - with the possible exception of those animals protected for religious/cultural reasons (such as cows in India).

[Dougy]

Having witnessed both methods of slaughter(worked in an abattoir)  i could not stand, or be anywhere near Halal methods of slaughtering. 

I shoot and kill animals and have a conscience of what the end is for the animal i had in the cross hair, but i do not agree with Halal at all. 

 

Edit, 

 

as for prackam and his clan i would give him the pleasure to discuss his goings on, unless its his eulogy 

Edited December 24, 2024 by Dougy

[GHE]

The RSPCA shouldn't have disappointed  their high-profile ex-supporters, their Assured scheme has always existed to assure their income, it's never been anything other than a money-making scheme, and Packham and co should have known that.

They've always done very well out of dotty old ladies who believe their non-stop TV adverts and leave them their houses, but they want money from all sources, hence their Assured's Higher Welfare Farm Animal Standards.

They're great at publicity and marketing, the only time that the public ever find out what they're really about is if they try to get them to answer the phone and actually deal with cruelty issues, they're not as good at that.

As for stunning, how are pigs stunned? They're suffocated with carbon dioxide, to make them easier to handle, and the RSPCA think that that's OK.