Originally from: Farmtalking
Too right Dot! – I'll try and have a word with Nick Mays!
How could he have got things so wrong? His reporting of the troubles we had with the Dangerous Dogs Act in the early 1990's was excellent and very accurate. Nick knows only too well that legislation does not have to be too specific to be devastating! In the DDA the wording 'Pit Bull Terrier 'type' led to such innocent family pets as labradors crossed with boxers, adorable well trained mongrels and many pure bred and sweet tempered Staffies, including a very young puppy, being seized and incarcerated. The SI doesn't have to say 'cats' for the ministry to class them susceptible to TSE (which I understand they are) and order their slaughter. If the Minister really does wish to 'exclude' cats and/or any other animal it should be clearly stated in the legislation. An answer to a question in writing or the House of Commons or Lords is not enough IMO. Were I a lawyer, I would be delighted to see such 'loosely' worded legislation. As with the DDA it calls for long and drawn out Court cases and tons of legal argument, all 'grist to the mill' as it were! Although I would be somewhat 'miffed' that it prevents animal owners from defending their livestock prior to slaughter and thus the lawyers from lining their pockets! Not that I have any great antipathy to lawyers – there are some real 'stars' among them, generous to a fault with their time and never sending a bill for their pains. Of course we already know the Government has intentions of curbing the Legal profession in one way or another, so they are due for the 'chop' along with the cats, British agiculture and the transport plan no doubt! But I'm much cheered by the the saying, frequently quoted north of the Border, that "The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft awry!"







Digg
reddit
Google Bookmarks
Yahoo! My Web
del.icio.us
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
livejournal
Facebook
BlinkList