Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
Geronimo.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Exfarmer" data-source="post: 7725297" data-attributes="member: 1951"><p>The Times has quite a bit to say about this evacuation.</p><p>Sadly nobody has picked up on the disease aspect of it but they have little time for the abuse that Pen and his supporters aimed at the government .</p><p>Sadly Boris caved in no doubt with somebody squeezing his doo dahs </p><p></p><p>A good piece by Charlotte Elvers in her Comment in The Times</p><p></p><p>Do you ever feel like you’re going slightly insane? Like the world has shifted so far from your understanding that the only explanation must be that some hitherto undisturbed part of your brain has melted?</p><p>I experienced this feeling while listening to Tom Swarbrick’s late-night show on LBC last week. He was taking calls on the topic of Operation Ark — the effort to evacuate about 200 <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/carrie-johnson-was-key-to-rescue-of-200-cats-and-dogs-from-kabul-6lgqn3gzz" target="_blank">animals from Afghanistan</a>. Caller after caller declared that the animals should be saved even if that meant diverting resources away from rescuing people. I listened in astonishment. One thing I had always presumed that everyone could agree on was that a human life is worth more than an animal life. How wrong I was. Quantifiably wrong, in fact. A YouGov poll last week showed 40 per cent of people think an animal life is worth the same as a human life.</p><p>If you’ve been lucky enough to miss this debacle, let me summarise. Paul “Pen” Farthing, a former marine who owns an animal charity, wanted to evacuate his 200 rescue cats and dogs from Kabul. They were denied access to an RAF flight because, well, you can’t put dogs on an RAF plane, and also there are desperate people who need to be on it.</p><p></p><p>A lobbying campaign ensued. Farthing was eventually told he would be able to charter his own plane — if he could get to the airport under his own steam. But you don’t just swan into Kabul airport. The defence secretary, Ben Wallace, growing increasingly irate at the farce, told MPs last week, “I have soldiers on the ground who have been diverted from saving those people because of inaccurate stories, inaccurate lobbying that have diverted that resource.” What really got to me is the fact that so many people seem to think this is a reasonable trade-off.</p><p>Think of those photographs of actual humans handing their babies to British soldiers, unsure if they will ever see them again. A thousand eligible Afghans will not make it to the UK.</p><p></p><p>Last week I texted a few MPs, asking: Have you had more campaigning emails from constituents about saving human refugees, or animals? All but one said animals. Perhaps I should not have been surprised. For years, parliamentary staff have told me their inboxes are dominated by pleas to save animals, regardless of any human suffering anywhere in the world.</p><p>I understand the urge to protect helpless animals. We have always been a nation of animal lovers. There is a proud history of tabloid campaigns to save condemned fluffy creatures. Most recently the star of the show has been <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/wed-learn-more-if-geronimo-is-spared-say-top-vets-qz5dfwp7j" target="_blank">Geronimo, the TB-ridden alpaca</a> whose death was ordered four years ago. He is now on his third environment secretary.</p><p>In 1987 there was Blackie, the donkey beaten and dragged through the streets as part of a fiesta tradition, saved from Spain by the Daily Star and rehomed in England. Then there was Anne, Britain’s last circus elephant, rescued in 2011 after more than £400,000 was raised to give her a new life.</p><p>Late in the day, our government has caught on to the trend. There is a temptation to attribute the Conservative Party’s conversion to the cause of animal rights to the prime minister’s wife, Carrie. This does not capture the whole story. The Tory animal rights revolution began in 2017 when MPs and candidates felt stung by the anger shown during the general election about the party’s position on fox hunting. Those who returned to Westminster had a conviction that Something Must Be Done to correct the view that the government was a bunch of fox-murdering toffs.</p><h2></h2><p></p><p></p><p>There were two further factors. An internal poll showed that environmental issues were one of the few areas that the public cared about and also did not feel that either of the big political parties owned. And there was a plea from the Downing Street policy unit for policy ideas that were popular, cheap and did not require legislation: the Holy Grail for a government with minimal support, less money and even less of a majority. Thus we were inundated with animal-friendly policies, from banning plastic straws to reintroducing three beavers to the countryside. The latter policy warranted a government press release.</p><p>I have watched the government’s animal infatuation with mild bemusement, but an overall sense of affection. But the fact that, in order to secure the safe passage of some dogs and cats, resources, time and energy have been diverted from saving people who have put themselves at risk to work for our country? I don’t like it. I don’t like it at all. And I really don’t like what it says about our country.</p><p><a href="https://www.twitter.com/CharlotteIvers" target="_blank">@CharlotteIvers</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Exfarmer, post: 7725297, member: 1951"] The Times has quite a bit to say about this evacuation. Sadly nobody has picked up on the disease aspect of it but they have little time for the abuse that Pen and his supporters aimed at the government . Sadly Boris caved in no doubt with somebody squeezing his doo dahs A good piece by Charlotte Elvers in her Comment in The Times Do you ever feel like you’re going slightly insane? Like the world has shifted so far from your understanding that the only explanation must be that some hitherto undisturbed part of your brain has melted? I experienced this feeling while listening to Tom Swarbrick’s late-night show on LBC last week. He was taking calls on the topic of Operation Ark — the effort to evacuate about 200 [URL='https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/carrie-johnson-was-key-to-rescue-of-200-cats-and-dogs-from-kabul-6lgqn3gzz']animals from Afghanistan[/URL]. Caller after caller declared that the animals should be saved even if that meant diverting resources away from rescuing people. I listened in astonishment. One thing I had always presumed that everyone could agree on was that a human life is worth more than an animal life. How wrong I was. Quantifiably wrong, in fact. A YouGov poll last week showed 40 per cent of people think an animal life is worth the same as a human life. If you’ve been lucky enough to miss this debacle, let me summarise. Paul “Pen” Farthing, a former marine who owns an animal charity, wanted to evacuate his 200 rescue cats and dogs from Kabul. They were denied access to an RAF flight because, well, you can’t put dogs on an RAF plane, and also there are desperate people who need to be on it. A lobbying campaign ensued. Farthing was eventually told he would be able to charter his own plane — if he could get to the airport under his own steam. But you don’t just swan into Kabul airport. The defence secretary, Ben Wallace, growing increasingly irate at the farce, told MPs last week, “I have soldiers on the ground who have been diverted from saving those people because of inaccurate stories, inaccurate lobbying that have diverted that resource.” What really got to me is the fact that so many people seem to think this is a reasonable trade-off. Think of those photographs of actual humans handing their babies to British soldiers, unsure if they will ever see them again. A thousand eligible Afghans will not make it to the UK. Last week I texted a few MPs, asking: Have you had more campaigning emails from constituents about saving human refugees, or animals? All but one said animals. Perhaps I should not have been surprised. For years, parliamentary staff have told me their inboxes are dominated by pleas to save animals, regardless of any human suffering anywhere in the world. I understand the urge to protect helpless animals. We have always been a nation of animal lovers. There is a proud history of tabloid campaigns to save condemned fluffy creatures. Most recently the star of the show has been [URL='https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/wed-learn-more-if-geronimo-is-spared-say-top-vets-qz5dfwp7j']Geronimo, the TB-ridden alpaca[/URL] whose death was ordered four years ago. He is now on his third environment secretary. In 1987 there was Blackie, the donkey beaten and dragged through the streets as part of a fiesta tradition, saved from Spain by the Daily Star and rehomed in England. Then there was Anne, Britain’s last circus elephant, rescued in 2011 after more than £400,000 was raised to give her a new life. Late in the day, our government has caught on to the trend. There is a temptation to attribute the Conservative Party’s conversion to the cause of animal rights to the prime minister’s wife, Carrie. This does not capture the whole story. The Tory animal rights revolution began in 2017 when MPs and candidates felt stung by the anger shown during the general election about the party’s position on fox hunting. Those who returned to Westminster had a conviction that Something Must Be Done to correct the view that the government was a bunch of fox-murdering toffs. [HEADING=1][/HEADING] There were two further factors. An internal poll showed that environmental issues were one of the few areas that the public cared about and also did not feel that either of the big political parties owned. And there was a plea from the Downing Street policy unit for policy ideas that were popular, cheap and did not require legislation: the Holy Grail for a government with minimal support, less money and even less of a majority. Thus we were inundated with animal-friendly policies, from banning plastic straws to reintroducing three beavers to the countryside. The latter policy warranted a government press release. I have watched the government’s animal infatuation with mild bemusement, but an overall sense of affection. But the fact that, in order to secure the safe passage of some dogs and cats, resources, time and energy have been diverted from saving people who have put themselves at risk to work for our country? I don’t like it. I don’t like it at all. And I really don’t like what it says about our country. [URL='https://www.twitter.com/CharlotteIvers']@CharlotteIvers[/URL] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
Geronimo.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top