Part 5 “Protection of activities of certain organisations” of the SOCPA 2005 be repealed

I believe Part 5 "Protection of activities of certain organisations" of the  SOCPA 2005 be repealed, as this section expressly prohibits protecting animals that can not protect or speak for themselves. This would give unhindered freedom to people who abuse animals in the course of their business to do so with out any consideration as to the welfare of rights of the animal.

In 2005 the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 was introduced by the labour Govt. This Law was trumpeted by politicians as an attempt to crackdown on crimes such as gangsterism, racketeering, people trafficking and sexual slavery, what it ended up as however was a crackdown on our right to organise and protest.

For a piece of legislation apparently designed to tackle some of the most heinous activities in our society it bizarrely contains a whole section specifically outlawing animal rights campaigning.

Sean Kirtley, an activist from Stop Sequani Labs in England became the first high profile victim of this Act receiving four and a half years (and a five year ASBO on release) for taking part in what even the police admitted was a peacefull protest against the Lab in 2007. You might remember we conducted a campaign along with other groups and individuals across the UK to have Sean released and last year after serving sixteen months the Court of Appeal overturned his conviction. A precedent was set however and they can legally now come for any of us.

Why is this idea important?

I believe Part 5 "Protection of activities of certain organisations" of the  SOCPA 2005 be repealed, as this section expressly prohibits protecting animals that can not protect or speak for themselves. This would give unhindered freedom to people who abuse animals in the course of their business to do so with out any consideration as to the welfare of rights of the animal.

In 2005 the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 was introduced by the labour Govt. This Law was trumpeted by politicians as an attempt to crackdown on crimes such as gangsterism, racketeering, people trafficking and sexual slavery, what it ended up as however was a crackdown on our right to organise and protest.

For a piece of legislation apparently designed to tackle some of the most heinous activities in our society it bizarrely contains a whole section specifically outlawing animal rights campaigning.

Sean Kirtley, an activist from Stop Sequani Labs in England became the first high profile victim of this Act receiving four and a half years (and a five year ASBO on release) for taking part in what even the police admitted was a peacefull protest against the Lab in 2007. You might remember we conducted a campaign along with other groups and individuals across the UK to have Sean released and last year after serving sixteen months the Court of Appeal overturned his conviction. A precedent was set however and they can legally now come for any of us.

Curb excessive RSPCA powers; rationalise animal protection

Repeal the Act that gave RSPCA its current powers to prosecute: it is a pressure group not a government enforcement agency. Reconsider requirements for domestic pet owners.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the Act that gave RSPCA its current powers to prosecute: it is a pressure group not a government enforcement agency. Reconsider requirements for domestic pet owners.

tail docking

We own six rotties and it was, before April 2007, Kennel Club breed standard that their tails were docked.  We now have two rottweilers with tails.  Their tails are quite long and their have been many times I have nearly trodden on their tails..  God forbid that I ever do and cause them an injury.  I am given to understand that once a tail sustains an injury, it usually has to be amputated.  What about the high possibility of a tail being caught in a door!!  Legalise tail docking. 

Why is this idea important?

We own six rotties and it was, before April 2007, Kennel Club breed standard that their tails were docked.  We now have two rottweilers with tails.  Their tails are quite long and their have been many times I have nearly trodden on their tails..  God forbid that I ever do and cause them an injury.  I am given to understand that once a tail sustains an injury, it usually has to be amputated.  What about the high possibility of a tail being caught in a door!!  Legalise tail docking. 

Repeal the Exemption for Religious Slaughter of Animals

The Slaughterhouses Act 1974 c.3 (part II (3)) allows for the slaughter of animals without prior stunning,  This exemption must be repealed in order that all animals are rendered insensible to pain at slaughter.  

Why is this idea important?

The Slaughterhouses Act 1974 c.3 (part II (3)) allows for the slaughter of animals without prior stunning,  This exemption must be repealed in order that all animals are rendered insensible to pain at slaughter.  

The Animal Welfare Act 2006

This heinous and ill-conceived Act ought to repealed in its entirety. Not only does it do little or nothing to improve animal welfare, it is actually leaves the animals and their owners far worse off in many cases. The numbers of tragic cases of victimisation and abuse is enormous. It is generally administered by mere 'functionaries' who show little compassion for either the animals or their owners.

Its modus operandi also amounts to a very serious attack on our civil liberties.

Why is this idea important?

This heinous and ill-conceived Act ought to repealed in its entirety. Not only does it do little or nothing to improve animal welfare, it is actually leaves the animals and their owners far worse off in many cases. The numbers of tragic cases of victimisation and abuse is enormous. It is generally administered by mere 'functionaries' who show little compassion for either the animals or their owners.

Its modus operandi also amounts to a very serious attack on our civil liberties.

Repeal the Hunting Act

The main reason it is necessary to repeal the Hunting Act is because it is detrimental to the welfare of the fox. Foxes must be controlled and it is my belief that hunting with hounds is the most humane and effective way of doing this.

Why is this idea important?

The main reason it is necessary to repeal the Hunting Act is because it is detrimental to the welfare of the fox. Foxes must be controlled and it is my belief that hunting with hounds is the most humane and effective way of doing this.

Repeal Breed Specific Legislation (Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act)

Seizing and destroying a dog based on the way it looks rather than its temperament a) does nothing to protect the public and b) compromises animal welfare.

Why is this idea important?

Seizing and destroying a dog based on the way it looks rather than its temperament a) does nothing to protect the public and b) compromises animal welfare.

DO NOT REPEAL THE HUNTING BAN

MR CLEGG;when the hunting ban was brought in by the previous government, it was with the support of the parliamentary and public majority. this long-overdue piece of legislation was overwhelmingly supported by all concerned animal welfare organisations who submitted compelling and irrefutable research that the practice of hunting with hounds is, undeniably, cruel in the extreme. what, pray tell, mr clegg(doing dodgy dave's dirty work), has changed in the intervening years?has new research emerged to show that foxes enjoy the,"thrill of the chase"? or maybe a new breed of masochistic fox has evolved that relishes the prospect of being ripped limb from limb? somehow, i doubt it; more likely is that you,(Mr Clegg), have sacrificed the principles of the party for whom(you claim), to have stood, for a little bit of power, in order to satisfy the bloodlust of dodgy dave's mates. how very sad that those who lead our country, are shallower than a puddle in the street. i fear that the die is already cast and this ridiculous website is no more than smoke and mirrors but, if you retain a shred of decency, principle and a sense of what is morally and ethically right, then please, grow some male genitalia and use any influence you may have to do the right thing.

Why is this idea important?

MR CLEGG;when the hunting ban was brought in by the previous government, it was with the support of the parliamentary and public majority. this long-overdue piece of legislation was overwhelmingly supported by all concerned animal welfare organisations who submitted compelling and irrefutable research that the practice of hunting with hounds is, undeniably, cruel in the extreme. what, pray tell, mr clegg(doing dodgy dave's dirty work), has changed in the intervening years?has new research emerged to show that foxes enjoy the,"thrill of the chase"? or maybe a new breed of masochistic fox has evolved that relishes the prospect of being ripped limb from limb? somehow, i doubt it; more likely is that you,(Mr Clegg), have sacrificed the principles of the party for whom(you claim), to have stood, for a little bit of power, in order to satisfy the bloodlust of dodgy dave's mates. how very sad that those who lead our country, are shallower than a puddle in the street. i fear that the die is already cast and this ridiculous website is no more than smoke and mirrors but, if you retain a shred of decency, principle and a sense of what is morally and ethically right, then please, grow some male genitalia and use any influence you may have to do the right thing.

Please do NOT repeal fox hunting law!

I beg you please, NOT to repeal the law on fox hunting, and the other hunting laws that it also covers eg. hare coursing etc.  

I did not agree with many things that Labour did, as a strong Conservative supporter, but on the grounds of cruelty (as described by RSPCA & IFAW, both of which I support) believe this was one good thing they did.  

There are no grounds on which people should hunt for sport, in this day and age.  It is a cruel practice.  There are better ways to manage animal populations.  

Thank you.

Why is this idea important?

I beg you please, NOT to repeal the law on fox hunting, and the other hunting laws that it also covers eg. hare coursing etc.  

I did not agree with many things that Labour did, as a strong Conservative supporter, but on the grounds of cruelty (as described by RSPCA & IFAW, both of which I support) believe this was one good thing they did.  

There are no grounds on which people should hunt for sport, in this day and age.  It is a cruel practice.  There are better ways to manage animal populations.  

Thank you.

remove movement ban on livestock

remove the animal six day movement ban as it restricts farming business (and is still enforced from 2001 foot & mouth outbreak) It  is of no benefit to disease control and is costly to both farming and Trading standards council enforcement officers. 

Why is this idea important?

remove the animal six day movement ban as it restricts farming business (and is still enforced from 2001 foot & mouth outbreak) It  is of no benefit to disease control and is costly to both farming and Trading standards council enforcement officers. 

Scrap the “Cascade” legislation applied to Veterinary Medicines

Currently it is a criminal offence for veterinary surgeons to prescribe a drug which is not a POM-V (Prescription Only Medicine-Veterinary ) except in exceptional circumstances. This legislation prohibits the use of cheap, safe and effective generic products which prior to its introduction were prescribed millions of times by thousands of vets without mishap. Drug companies have cynically exploited this legislation by inexpensively obtaining licences for these same generic products via simple bureaucratic exercises and then charging premium prices for them*. Drugs which used to cost a few pence per tablet  for the generic version can now cost over one pound per tablet for the licenced product.

*For confirmation of the above please refer to the Annual Report of  Dechra Pharmaceuticals in 2006 or 2007.

Why is this idea important?

Currently it is a criminal offence for veterinary surgeons to prescribe a drug which is not a POM-V (Prescription Only Medicine-Veterinary ) except in exceptional circumstances. This legislation prohibits the use of cheap, safe and effective generic products which prior to its introduction were prescribed millions of times by thousands of vets without mishap. Drug companies have cynically exploited this legislation by inexpensively obtaining licences for these same generic products via simple bureaucratic exercises and then charging premium prices for them*. Drugs which used to cost a few pence per tablet  for the generic version can now cost over one pound per tablet for the licenced product.

*For confirmation of the above please refer to the Annual Report of  Dechra Pharmaceuticals in 2006 or 2007.

Replace Dangerous Dog Act With Dog Ownership Test

Replace the flawed and outdated 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act with a national, compulsory dog ownership scheme, designed to raise standards of dog ownership and animal welfare, reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries as a result of dog attack and to rid the tax payer of the heavy burden of having to pay for irresponsible dog ownership.

Why is this idea important?

Replace the flawed and outdated 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act with a national, compulsory dog ownership scheme, designed to raise standards of dog ownership and animal welfare, reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries as a result of dog attack and to rid the tax payer of the heavy burden of having to pay for irresponsible dog ownership.