What Does Justice Look Like To You?

Photo Credit: Scott* via Compfight cc
Photo Credit: Scott* via Compfight cc

Yesterday saw two simultaneous protests take place in Sydney and Canberra with participants demanding ‘justice’ for the pigs from Wally’s Piggery, and claiming that the RSPCA has blood on it’s hands due to the dropping of charges against WSL Investments Pty Ltd, Wally Perenc and Stefanie Perenc (referred to as  Wally’s Piggery).

Despite RSPCA NSW putting out two separate statements on the matter, they have fallen on deaf ears, and mob rule has now taken the place of natural justice.

Let Those Without Sin Cast The First Stone

[GARD]What appeared to be one of the most ironic moments of both protests was the crowd listening to words from Chris Delforce in Canberra, and Mark Pearson in NSW. Two people who probably have more blood on their hands than anyone else involved in this whole sorry saga.

Both of these people belong to organisations that were responsible for taking the footage, or releasing it to the media, or both. This hardly makes them qualified enough to pass judgement on the actions or inactions of RSPCA NSW. Especially considering that it was their actions that have lead us to where we are now.

We also seem to be forgetting that Mark Pearson was the one who was advocating that more slaughterhouses be built while campaigning for a Senate seat as part of the Animal Justice Party.

Any speech given by them, no matter how passionate, has only been done to shift the focus away from the part that they played, and attempt to absolve them of any guilt.

Could The Footage Be Used Or Couldn’t It.

Most of the confusion around this case centers on the footage obtained by individuals from the NSW and ACT branches of the Animal Liberation franchise.

Since the RSPCA NSW’s decision to drop the 53 charges against Wally’s Piggery a number of conflicting or confusing messages have been made relating to the widely distributed footage.

Beginning with the following from the Aussie Pigs website (retrieved 14 Dec 2014)

The RSPCA asked Animal Liberation to provide names and contact details of the activists involved in obtaining the evidence. However, advice from lawyers was that whether or not this information was provided to the RSPCA, it was highly unlikely that the illegally-gathered evidence could be used in court, and that it would put the activists in great danger from Wally and other pig farmers, and of course might lead to prosecution against them rather than the farmers.

Then there is this from Animal Defenders Office (retrieved 14 Dec 2014)

It is difficult to understand how this could have led to all charges against the piggery operators being dismissed.  Under s138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW/CTH), a court has a discretion to admit ‘improperly or illegally obtained evidence’. Such evidence is not automatically dismissed simply because it may be ‘illegally obtained’.

Considering that both of these statements came from the same side, can you see why it is confusing as to who we should believe?

Consider The Following:

  • Dropping of 53 charges relate to those laid by inspectors based on the observations they made at the time. NOT on the footage supplied to the media.
  • Wally’s Piggery plead not guilty to the 53 charges, and are entitled to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
  • Illegally obtained footage wasn’t able to be authenticated. This is what made it inadmissible in court.
  • While illegally obtained footage MAY be admissible in court, it is up to the presiding judge to decide.
  • With the footage not being able to be authenticated, the 53 charges potentially become fruit of the tainted tree, as it was the footage itself that lead to the investigation by RSPCA NSW, Police, and NSW food Authority.
  • RSPCA NSW has actually answered why the charges were dropped. Just because it is an answer that most of us don’t want to hear, doesn’t change the fact that it has been answered.

How Was Justice To Be Served?

Let’s say for a moment the RSPCA NSW was successful in obtaining a criminal conviction against Wally’s Piggery. What sentence would have been adequate in the eyes of those protesting?

A fine?

Criminal conviction and prohibition from owning other animals for x years?

Or, how about incarceration for x months/years?

Would any of them change the general public’s opinion of other animals? I highly doubt it.

Would they cause pigs to stop being killed for food? Definitely not.

So, if they don’t have a chance of changing the status quo, how could justice claimed to have been served?

The reality of it all is that Wally’s Piggery are being used as the fall guys for the accepted views of society.

At the end of the day, the charges against Wally’d Piggery have been dropped, and case dismissed. It’s time that everyone acknowledged the part that they played, picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and learnt from the mistakes that were made.

This social media war that Animals Australia, Animal Liberation NSW and Animal Liberation ACT are waging against RSPCA NSW is embarrassing to legitimate animal advocates. Trying to ‘out-care’ the RSPCA is pointless and while it may increase brand awareness and the public perception of caring for the animals, the ultimate losers will in actual fact be the animals themselves.

If these groups really want to show the world how much they really care for the animals, why didn’t they organise a nation wide event to promote veganism?

After all, that is something that the RSPCA would never do in a million years. Though come to think of it, neither would any of those groups.

So much for ‘liberating’ the animals…

19 thoughts on “What Does Justice Look Like To You?”

  1. What you seem to forget is that the people you judge as ‘having blood on their hands’ are the very ones that brought this abhorrent behaviour out in the open. I’m sure you were once a meat-eater yourself. Thanks goodness they woke up and thank goodness they decided to be whistle-blowers; otherwise the public and government would still be living with delusions of ‘humane’ piggeries.
    This might not stop all cruelty in piggeries or all people to stop eating pigs, but it’s a start in what is a momentum towards changing attitudes and belief systems. After all, slavery didn’t stop in a day.
    From some of the writings I’ve encountered from you, I’ve come to the conclusion that you’re definitely a ‘glass half empty’ kinda guy. This comes to me as a surprise from a person who extols himself as an activist. An activist without hope, always looking at the negative, to me, is already defeated.

    • Hi Serenity,
      No I haven’t forgotten that these people are most probably the same ones to gathered the footage in the first place. What I am saying is that due to their actions, that they have played a part in the charges being dropped against Wally’s Piggery. Yet they are pointing the finger at RSPCA NSW, and laying the blame solely at their feet.

      To tell you the truth, I am a long way from giving up hope. If I had, I would be curled up in a ball somewhere. Writing is only one part of what I do, and usually only happens when I reach such a level of sheer frustration that I need to have a rant/vent.

  2. Well, it’s good and all to judge those who put this rally together yesterday, which ist add was successful and got a good amount of exposure. If you know all the answers, then why don’t you organise a vegan rally?

    This is the problem with some vegans, they alienate a lot of people and are very negative.

    • Hi Kathleen,
      How were the two rallies successful? They didn’t get ‘justice’ for the pigs, nor did they get a new response from RSPCA NSW.

      I don’t have all the answers, which is why I keep asking questions, and researching things. Though if you were referring to this matter, the answers were easy to find if you only looked.

      I fully agree with you that there are far too many vegans who alienate people and are negative. I think painting your hands red and gathering in town to ‘demand’ ‘answers’ has to be the easiest way to alienate people.

      What do you think?

      • I think that you need to stop being so judgemental.

        There were many different people there at the rally from all walks of life. Who are you to judge them. I can’t see what you’re doing as helping the animals either. If anything, you are hell bent on segregating people.

        • Hi Kathleen,
          Thank you for your comment and raising an important issue.

          This is supposedly a social justice movement, and if the actions of those who are positioning themselves a leaders is not able to be scrutinised, then how is this ‘movement’ supposed to grow, develop and mature?

          Also, I do not think that I have passed and sort of personal judgement on those individuals who attended the rallies over the weekend.

          Chris Delforce, who spoke at the Canberra protest has confirmed that it was “acknowledged from the start that it was far more important to show the Australian public the realities of pig farming, rather than silently prosecute a single pig farmer

          With this being the case, why are they Animal Liberation NSW and Aussie Farms, getting all upset now that the charges have been dropped? Could it be that the real reason behind the protests was promotion of their respective brands, and had nothing to do with any sort of ‘justice’

  3. I’m not up with all the details of this case but it does seem to be disastrous in terms of what will happen to the pigs. That is probably nothing. It is important how animal activists go about obtaining evidence. There is already enough anti-vegan sentiment out there without making matters worse for the individuals we are trying to help. This piggery very likely will now go right back to what they were doing, and the psychologically disturbed humans who work there I have no doubt will pay out on the pigs for what these activists have done. I do have to ask if what was happening was so terrible to initiate the illegal taking of footage, why were they not willing to stand up in court? I would have.

    • Hi Kerry,
      My understanding of it, based on what I have read, is that those who took the footage were not willing to make statements about it because they feared that they would become targets themselves. And that by acknowledging that they took the footage, it may leave them open to prosecution, either criminally or civilly.

      I also agree, that if they don’t have the courage to stand by their actions, it does make me wonder why they did it in the first place.

  4. Blewett’s at it again; dishing out cheap criticism, from the comfort of the sideline, of people who actually had the guts to do something to stop the abominable cruelty of that piggery.

    He’s also unwittingly making the case for questioning the RSPCA’s commitment to seeking justice in this case, by pointing out that there really seems to be no clear reason why the case was dropped. If, as the RSPCA states, it had its own independent, legally obtained evidence of cruelty, then its case need not have relied at all on any other evidence. It is essentially irrelevant in law how the RSPCA became alerted to the need to conduct an inspection of the piggery, there is no substance to the ‘fruit from a tainted tree’ claim made by Blewett.

    The sad truth is, this is all about money, the RSPCA have a severe funding crisis. The pig farming industry indicated very clearly that it would underwrite the defence, it thus called the RSPCA’s bluff, in typical bullying fashion, and the RSPCA wilted. It’s as simple as that. I believe this case could and should have been brought by the crown via the DPI.

    I remind spectator Blewett that Wally’s was shut down because of the actions of the activists, and it remains so. It is most unlikely the owners will seek a licence to operate a piggery again, but even if it were to do so, I’m quite sure the hurdles they would be made to negotiate would make that very difficult. I remind readers that the NSW DPI was very disappointed that the RSPCA dropped the charges, it has by no means forgotten this.

    Justice was clearly denied here in a far from unusual way; the tactic of creating fear of financially crippling court costs going against the claimant, which created uncertainty in its mind as to the soundness of its case, where there really should have been no doubt. A well funded claimant would not have backed down. It is very disappointing, and I believe the RSPCA were wrong to back down, but I also understand the depth of its charter and how poorly resourced it now is to carry that out.

    All this vocal spectator ever does is criticise, I have never once seen him contribute constructively to delivering realistic, helpful outcomes. This makes his level of contribution nothing more than whitenoise which contaminates the issue with irrelevance. The people who protested the RSPCA decision were right to do so, this case should not have been abandoned.

    • Wolf,
      That you for the comment and I appreciate being given the opportunity to address a few misconceptions about animal advocacy.
      I will do my best to respond to your comments, though please forgive me if I miss something

      First of all, your initial statement is totally incorrect and possibly deliberately misleading.

      Blewett’s at it again; dishing out cheap criticism, from the comfort of the sideline, of people who actually had the guts to do something to stop the abominable cruelty of that piggery

      Despite what you may think, I am not dishing out ‘cheap criticism’, I am actually raising valid, yet overlooked points of this whole embarrassing saga.
      I think it is totally unfair and egotistical of you to claim that I am doing this from the safety of the sidelines. As far as I am aware, there is no ‘frontline’, which means that there can’t be any sidelines.
      If these people had the guts to do something to stop the cruelty, then why didn’t they come forward and authenticate the footage?

      I disagree with your claim that It is essentially irrelevant in law how the RSPCA became alerted to the need to conduct an inspection of the piggery as RSPCA NSW’s website states. To investigate a complaint in NSW, RSPCA Inspectors require reasonable grounds to suspect that an animal cruelty offence has been committed.

      I agree with you on both point about this whole saga being about money, and that the DPI (Crown) should have been the ones to prosecute this case. Regardless of whether the pig industry was backing Wally or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the NSW And ACT branches of the Animal Liberation franchise, and Aussie Farms made the decision to try and profit out of this footage by releasing it 1 day after they gave it to the RSPCA, if their side of the story is to be believed.

      I do agree that the case should not have been abandoned, though with new information that has been discovered, I believe the people that did attend the two protests were mislead and possibly even deliberately lied to. Chris Delforce has said is was “acknowledged from the start that it was far more important to show the Australian public the realities of pig farming, rather than silently prosecute a single pig farmer”.

      This means that those groups involved chose their own profit over prosecution or protection of those pigs at Wally’s Piggery. So. please tell me again who much they love and care for the animals?

  5. It is important to firstly state that it is by no means clear why the RSPCA abandoned this action, a point which Blewett fails to appreciate.
    The essence of Blewett’s ‘contention’ here seems to be that he believes the RSPCA is not to blame for the failure of this case, he claims that the person(s) who made the complaint to the RSPCA should be blamed, because they allegedly would not substantiate their footage by identifying who took it. He is, of course, incorrect.
    A key part of his last comment to me relating to the RSPCA’s initiation of an investigation into this piggery, is actually not likely to be at all relevant, as I previously stated. Two relevant RSPCA NSW rules are very clear, which are:

    – No investigation commences unless the contact details of the person(s) who raise a complaint are provided. This is not only RSPCA policy, it is a statutory obligation. Contact details are kept confidential in accordance with privacy laws, and under no circumstances can the RSPCA reveal them to the alleged offender.

    -An investigation will not proceed unless the RSPCA Inspectors have reasonable grounds to suspect that an animal cruelty offence has been committed. This too is a statutory obligation, however, it is notionally very easy to comply with, given the nature of wording of the rule under which this obligation falls.

    Any reference to these obligations should be subject to the following obvious logic, which appears to have escaped Blewett:
    The fact that the RSPCA initiated an investigation demonstrates that, in the very least, these two relevant statutory obligations should have been satisfied before it did so. If either of them were not, that would have rendered the RSPCA investigation of this matter legally invalid from the outset, and it cannot subsequently redress that. The person(s) who submitted the complaint of cruelty at that piggery to the RSPCA would not just be legally correct to decide not to be a part of any attempt to improperly redress any such failure, it would have been unethical for them to have done so.
    That said, to my knowledge, the legal grounding of the RSPCA’s initiation of the investigation was in fact not challenged in any way by the defence. Therefore reference to these obligations is neither necessary nor relevant, and I raise this only because Blewett tries to refer to it as an issue. I stand firmly by my earlier statement, which was that it is essentially irrelevant in law how the RSPCA became alerted to the need to conduct an inspection of the piggery.

    If the RSPCA’s perceived problem with this case related to the evidence which it planned to rely on , that is a matter which is entirely unrelated to the pre investigation obligations referred to above. I believe this is likely to be the case; ie the RSPCA belatedly became concerned that there was a risk that the evidence it gathered independently of the covert footage may not have been enough to as good as guarantee a result. Because of its funding difficulties, the RSPCA will not proceed with court action unless its case is rock solid. The pig industry representative bodies are well funded and are very well aware of the RSPCA’s financial limitations, thus for them to financially back the alleged offenders was highly relevant. Without that support, there is little doubt that the defendants would have ultimately entered a changed plea, at which point the case would have been all over. I repeat, this withdrawal was all about money, and the financially supportive role played by the pig industry representative bodies should not be underestimated, as Blewett appears to have done.

    As to the actions of the individual activist(s), their legal advice was very clear; that to substantiate their footage so as to enable it to be relied on in court (which, I repeat, the RSPCA claims it wasn’t going to do) would require they identify themselves. Such a course would almost certainly have led to the vigorous pursuit of criminal charges against them, at the direction and insistence of certain elements within the current NSW government. Despite this, it is claimed that at least some of the individuals in question were still in fact prepared to provide statements of substantiation, and that the RSPCA was advised of this during the preparation of the case.

    The RSPCA official media statement released in response to its withdrawal of this matter implores people with evidence of cruelty to report it to the relevant authority (in this case, the RSPCA or the NSW DPI). The problem is, the authorities were alerted about cruelty at this piggery on several occasions prior to the 2012 covert operation to obtain footage, but inexplicably, they did not act. In fact, that inaction was the catalyst for the covert operation to gain footage of the cruelty.
    The RSPCA’s official media statement in response to this withdrawal is also deeply contradictory; it states in part :

    “The RSPCA NSW investigation of this matter arose as a result of footage that has been widely circulated on the internet. We are disappointed that this footage was not lawfully substantiated by Aussie Pigs and/or Animal Liberation, who initially released the footage to the media instead of giving it directly to one of the enforcement agencies. Those responsible for capturing the images subsequently would not provide a statement to RSPCA NSW so none of the evidence released by them could be used in the prosecution.”

    However, in the very next paragraph in that statement (which follows here), it was at pains to make it abundantly clear that the case did not in any way rely on the covert footage:

    “There appears to be a common misconception that the case at Yass Local Court relates to the widely circulated footage. This is not correct. The RSPCA NSW’s case in this matter sought to rely on its Inspectors observations and those of other agencies and an expert when they attended in early August 2012 and not the widely distributed video footage.”

    The contradiction is clear, and further to this, the covert footage was provided to the authorities before it was provided to the media, despite what this statement claims. However, even if that were not so, there is no legal requirement which states that such evidence must be provided to authorities before any other body, including the media. No wrong was done in this regard, yet the RSPCA seems to be attempting to infer that there was.

    No matter how you view this, the RSPCA has not acquitted itself well in this matter,
    I remind Blewett that Wally’s piggery was shut down, and it remains so, and that happened because of the actions of the activists. The NSW DPI will not forget the despicable people behind it, thus it is highly unlikely that they will ever be practically allowed to run any kind of livestock farming operation, let alone a piggery, in NSW.

    Blewett’s final statement referring to the animal advocacy groups involved having some kind of agenda of profit over prosecution is a deliberate and disgraceful misrepresentation of the truth. The statement by Delforce, which he claims shows this to be so, actually does no such thing, as any rational thinking person would quickly appreciate. He provided no evidence or justification at all in drawing an extremely long bow in his accusatory conclusion. It is not the task of animal advocacy groups to provide the legal foundation for any court proceedings relating to animal cruelty. Essentially, their role is to expose instances of animal cruelty, leading to actions which stop the cruelty in question. In this case, it did exactly that, it achieved its goal. However, the authorities involved did not act in a way which delivered any semblance of justice to which our community rightfully feels an entitlement. The people who attended the rally were aware of this, they were not misled or lied to, and Delforce’s statement confirms that very point. Blewett’s summation that the animal advocacy groups involved in this were motivated by profit is cowardly both in the way it was raised, and in its undeniably malicious, inexplicably spiteful intent.

    Blewett is raising red herrings, based on some very misguided, shallow presumptions, and I’ve observed that to be generally how he operates. There is a ‘frontline’ to this issue, the fact that he doesn’t seem to know that just highlights the point that it does not involve him. He objects to someone pointing that out to him, which in turn shows where the actual egotistic imperative he tries to imply really lies. To compound this, he is making public commentary which he claims to be reasoned and adequately researched, however, elementary scrutinisation shows it to be anything but. Blewett is very obviously not privy to the goings on within any of the various groups, agencies and authorities which were involved in this matter. In order to compensate for that, he fills the massive gaps of intelligence with baseless, inaccurate presumptions, anointing himself as an authority on the matter, when he is really is not. The fact is the people he maligns motivated by a glaring need to expose very real cases of animal cruelty, which is often so atrocious, it is difficult to believe that any sane person could be a party to it; the motive of profit seeking is generally the domain of those who seek to exploit animals, which often results in cruelty. Those who try to stop that are driven by the exact opposite of that imperative. So, I will indeed tell him again, since he requests I do so, that they very much do love and care for the animals. The motive for his tirade against these people is clearly personal, and again, it isn’t hard to see where the true egotistical element is. He should know that he appears to be defending factory farmers, and I note that he appears to also defend the cruel live export trade. I have yet to see any effort on Blewett’s part which actually contributes in any meaningful way to stopping the kind of animal cruelty which so deeply concerns many in our community. All I see is a noisy little sideliner who yells abuse at the players, and who is actually shunned by all sides involved. Whitenoise.

    • Where did I say that RSPCA NSW is not to blame for this? I do believe that I have said that questions need to be asked, and it has to start with those who took the footage.

      With all the ramblings that you have just made, you still haven’t been able to point out to me where the front line is. I guess that means that you don’t know either.

      I stand by the statement that these groups are more interested in profit, and yes, I did use a comment made by Chris Delforce as proof of that. I believe further evidence of this is that it took ‘them’ weeks or months to compile the footage that was released, yet RSPCA NSW was given less than 24 hours to process it.

      That hardly seems like the actions of an organisation that doesn’t put profit first now does it?

      As for live export, I have said that if ‘we’ are concerned about ‘cruelty’ then yes Australia needs to stay in it, as that will be the only way that standards are improved.

      Just so we are clear, I don’t give a whoopty about ‘cruelty’ it is an objective and subjective term that has varying levels depnding on the person that is viewing it. For example, I believe it is ‘cruel’ and oppressive to have a pet, whereas others don’t. What I am concerned about is the USE of other animals, something that has never been questioned in any of the campaigns that I have seen.

  6. So there it is, you don’t care about cruelty, because you regard it as both objective and subjective! Do you ever stop and think, even for a moment, about what you are trying to say? You support live export, which is proven to be cruel, and there is no question of subjectivity in that assessment. You regard people who rescue or adopt animals from pounds etc out of compassion for them as cruel and oppressive because of it, a blanket presumption which, as I mentioned earlier, you seem incapable of avoiding.

    You are one conflicted little sideline dweller, no wonder no one takes you seriously; no one is listening to you, nor will they. Again, you are just whitenoise.

    • Here we go again…

      Live export, or should I say foreign slaughter which is what the complaints are really about, is no more or less ‘cruel’ than having animals killed here in Australia.

      People do not rescue/adopt animals from pounds. They buy an animal that would otherwise be put down, so if you really want to get technical about it all, they are paying a ransom.

      Either way, it is our focus on consumerism, and what makes us ‘feel good’ about this transaction that causes us to disguise it with warm and fuzzy terms like ‘adopt’, ‘rescue’ and ‘forever home’. If those ‘compassionate’ people seriously considered what was in the best interests of the animal they were about to purchase, instead of themselves, things might be different.

      As for your continual reference to me being a sideline dweller that no ones takes seriously or listens to. You seem to have done the opposite, judging by the time that you have spent responding to the original article and successive comments.

      This leads me to believe that maybe people are listening and cracks are starting to appear in the cozy little deceptive world of ‘animal protection’

  7. No, that’s wrong as usual, the issues with live export go well beyond foreign slaughter; eg, it is a form of factory farming from the moment the animals leave the station or farm. Blewett should do some research, and find out what many hundreds of thousands of people are concerned about instead of espousing unfounded theories which arise from his rash assumptions. That’d be hard for him, I know, but he should give it a go someday…that’s what people with cred do.

    His views on people who take condemned animals and give them a life are very vitriolic, I’ve flushed them down where they belong, with the push of a button. I bet our craven little spectator wouldn’t have the guts to express them face to face; it seems there is not a single animal welfare related cause he agrees with, but he is a stooge for the live export trade. That says enough to us all.

    I comment here just because it’s a bit of sport for me to show him up for what he is. Clearly, he is led to believe many things which are manifestly symptomatic of his own delusion. Blewett, a sideline squealer, a lonely, irrelevant pipsqueak who has no base.

    • Live export is a form of factory farming?
      Well you are partly right there, all animal agriculture is factory farming.

      As for why hundreds of thousands of people are against it. Well that is because groups like Animals Australia have created the perfect campaign. Target countries that are not Christian, and draw a sublte reference to the slaughter being inline with religious practices, while claiming that “Australian animals” are being mistreated.

      Here is a news flash for you. There are slaughterhouses in Australia where an exemption from pre-stunning has been given, and as we have seen Australian legislation doesn’t protect those animals being killed here from mistreatment either. Then there is the reinforcing of the commodity status of other animals by always referring to them as ‘Australian animals’.
      By supporting Australia ‘getting out’ of the live export industry, it also indicates a substantial shortsightedness on the part of the protestor, as they are only concerned with the way that ‘Australian animals’ are treated, and don’t care about those from other countries. If they were, then they would be doing all that they could to have the slaughter conditions improved everywhere.

      As I have said in the past, I do not agree with the use of other animals for food or otherwise, so from that aspect I am against ANY slaughter, foreign or domestic. For those who are against ‘cruelty’ to animals, I cannot see how they can be opposed to Australia staying in ‘live export’ unless it is about ‘Australian animals’ being killed ‘that’ way. Which means that their objection is based more on bigotry than it is about ‘caring’ for those animals.

      My views don’t change whether I am talking to someone online or face to face.
      It is interesting to hear people’s thoughts when they acknowledge that the animal that they purchased is more important than the animals that he or she may eat for food. It is even more interesting to hear people justify keeping their animal at home during the day, alone, while they are at work; fed when they, the owner, decides; socialised when the owner decides and so on. Using the ‘justification’ that quantity is more important than quality of life.

      Anyway, please keep commenting as it highlights how little progress ‘we’ have achieved with the status of other animals, and what work needs to be done. Your comments also reflect the view that things are done because they make ‘you’ feel good, rather than being in the best interests of the animal concerned.

  8. No news flash there from the little one….there are no exemptions for cattle prestunning here, none. In fact even though sheep may be exempted in certain places here, prestunning is still used anyway, because it is quicker, easier and more efficient. He doesn’t know an awful lot about this, because he clearly is not part of it, nor has he ever been.

    Blewett’s live export theory is lamentably lacking in thought, he buys the rubbish the industry publishes, like a good little follower.

    As for what I do, he has no knowledge of that, so he again revert to his default mode of making assumptions, and as usual, they are wrong.

    This one is completely contradicted, and he can’t even seem to see it. He states that live exporting should continue, because he really thinks Australian involvement in it will improve animal welfare, yet he is maliciously critical of people who keep animals. Keeping all animals, including livestock, and that includes livestock for live export, is just another example of the general failure of the progress of animals’ status, yet our confused spectator happily promotes live export. How sadly mixed up can he be!

    • Thank you again Wolf for claiming that there are no exeptions for cattle as it caused me to reconfirm that there is. You can read about it from the RSPCA here

      I will leave comments about ignorance alone as I was once told to never argue with an idiot as they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. Which was something that was beginning to happen here.


What are your thoughts?