Right Thinking From The Left Coast
We didn't lose the game; we just ran out of time. - Vince Lombardi

Law & Order: Pet Police
by Lee

And once again Britain demonstrates that there is no aspect of life anywhere under any circumstances that doesn’t warrant oversight from Big Brother.

CATS, dogs and other family pets are to have five statutory “freedoms” enshrined in law — and owners who flout the regulations could face jail or a fine of up to £5,000 after a visit from the “pet police”.

The Times has learnt that Margaret Beckett, the Environment Secretary, is to produce detailed codes of conduct telling pet owners how to feed their animals and where they should go to the toilet, along with ways of providing “mental stimulation”. Owners of “sociable” pets should provide them with playmates, the codes will say.

Every domesticated animal will have a code of conduct tailored to their species, each of which is expected to run into dozens of pages. This will form part of the Animal Welfare Bill, expected to clear Parliament in the next few months.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will inform the owners of Britain’s ten million cats, eight million dogs and one million rabbits of their new obligations in a series of pamphlets distributed to vets, pet shops, kennels and over the internet.

The first code of conduct, produced for cat owners, has been obtained by The Times. The 18-page A4 document, drafted for MPs scrutinising the Bill, warns cat owners of the dangers of dogs. It reads: “Dogs should be introduced to cats very carefully. The dog should be on a lead at first so that it cannot chase the cat.”

Although any breach of these codes is not an offence in itself, failure to observe elements of the code will count against defendants in court.

The five freedoms laid down by the Animal Welfare Bill are: appropriate diet, suitable living conditions, companionship or solitude as appropriate, monitoring for abnormal behaviour and protection from pain, suffering, injury and disease. The law will be enforced by “pet police”; council employees with powers to enter property and seize animals.

That’s right, folks.  If you don’t raise your pet exactly the way that Big Brother tells you, the pet police can enter your property, seize your animals, and arrest you.  Note that this isn’t just about animal cruelty, this is about the manner in which you care for your pets.

Scary, isn’t it?  I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the UK is literally a police state.

Posted by Lee on 01/30/06 at 09:04 AM (Discuss this in the forums)

Comments


Posted by on 01/30/06 at 10:13 AM from United States

So why aren’t the lefty moonbats screaming about the lose of civil liberty in the UK?

Oh, that’s the right kind. I see.

Posted by Drumwaster on 01/30/06 at 10:21 AM from United States

Anything not forbidden is mandatory.
Anything not mandatory is forbidden.

Welcome to the Brave New World.

Posted by on 01/30/06 at 10:22 AM from United States

I believe San Francisco passed a similar law.

Posted by on 01/30/06 at 10:28 AM from Europe

OT - padders, just from some of your comments… are you Northern Irish? I’m from Tyrone…

Posted by mikeguas on 01/30/06 at 10:57 AM from United States

Holy shit! This is hilarious. It’s like a 3rd grader wrote that bill.

Posted by on 01/30/06 at 11:50 AM from United Kingdom

Although any breach of these codes is not an offence in itself, failure to observe elements of the code will count against defendants in court.

That seems the relevant quote. If you see some of the things people can do to animals currently with no repercusions you might approvate of some changing legislation. The people that deal with this (often the RSPCA, a charity) have almost no powers - far far less than they do in the US.

They are not going to send someone to jail for giving their cat the wrong type of cat food, but let your cat starve to death and finally we may be able to prosecute people. About time.

It seems fair to me. We have welfare requirements for how you keep animals before you eat them, the same should apply to animals in homes.

So why aren’t the lefty moonbats screaming about the lose of civil liberty in the UK?

Oh, that’s the right kind. I see.

Exactly. Liberties are not intrinsically good. The libery to torture/starve animals is not one most people in the UK value very highly. There are definitely fair criticisms to be made of some aspects of our culture (say the prevalence of CCTV being a particular one) but I don’t see this in any way a loss of a liberty. Of course I trust our police/justice system when it comes to prosecuting things like this - perhaps that’s the difference which might go back to the discussion re rights&abortion;on how we do things.

Posted by on 01/30/06 at 11:54 AM from United Kingdom

OT - padders, just from some of your comments… are you Northern Irish? I’m from Tyrone…

Hi Patrick, no I am English from the South East of England, moving to London pretty soon. I actually went to Northern Ireland for the first time last summer though, only for a long weekend but was lots of fun.

Posted by on 01/30/06 at 12:49 PM from United States

Weren’t you just saying the other day that the British system is better?

Posted by Lee on 01/30/06 at 12:59 PM from United States

That seems the relevant quote. If you see some of the things people can do to animals currently with no repercusions you might approvate of some changing legislation. The people that deal with this (often the RSPCA, a charity) have almost no powers - far far less than they do in the US.

Actually, this is the relevant quote.

This is a significant shift from the present situation, where prosecutors have to prove a domestic animal is being mistreated.

This seems to cover the example in your comment of starving a cat to death.  This is illegal here in the US under countless animal cruelty laws, and you can and will be prosecuted if you violate them.  What is different in the UK is that now the nanny state is defining how you need to raise your pet.  If you don’t show it enough love and attention, for example, you risk running afoul of the law.  Now, I think it’s awful when someone locks their dog up in the backyard all day, but should this be any of the state’s business? 

There is a world of difference between laws protecting animals from cruelty and the type of Big Brother-esque nanny state intrusion that is being implemented in the UK.

Posted by Lee on 01/30/06 at 01:01 PM from United States

Weren’t you just saying the other day that the British system is better?

AAAAAARGH!!!!  Christ, you people drive me fucking insane sometimes!  I said that THE BRITISH ATTITUDE TOWARDS DIVISIVE SOCIAL ISSUES LIKE ABORTION is better than the way we look at it.  I said that about ten times during the course of that discussion.  Now I’ve said it 11.

Posted by on 01/30/06 at 01:09 PM from United States

The “humane” movement creeps along. They won’t ban animal ownership, just regulate it to the extent that having a pet won’t be worth it.

Posted by Drumwaster on 01/30/06 at 01:24 PM from United States

Liberties are not intrinsically good.

I gotta say, puddles, this is probably the most idiotic statement ever to slip through your keyboard. And you’ve written quite a few…

First, you conflate “freedom” with “liberties” and assign them to pets. If people abuse those pets, then you punish them for cruelty to animals (which is already against the law), and turn that negative into a positive command from Big Brother, in that you are required to feed your pet exactly the right amount lest you either starve them or make them fat.

You shall play with your pet exactly the right amount, neither more (which will irritate the pet) nor less (which will cause the pet to feel neglected).

You shall keep its living quarters neither too cool nor too warm.

You shall keep it plentifully supplied with the correct number of EU-approved pet toys, neither more nor less.

You shall not name it anything which can be translated as an insult in any known or unknown language, nor shall you name it anything that is defined by a relationship, such as “Fido” (from Latin fidelius, implying the fidelity of a subordinate to a superior), “Spot” (implying a judgment based on skin color), “Missy” (implying a judgment based on gender), “King"/"Prince" (implying a judgment based on types of governments), and the like.

Unelected and unaccountable volunteers from unelected “charitable” groups shall have the authority to enter your home at any time to ensure full compliance with these regulations.

I guess this is just the next step to national dress codes. (Don’t want to allow those filthy rich to wear better clothes than the merely filthy, plus it will also cut down on muggings if there is no way to tell whether a person is carrying anything of value - or might be a policeman, who knows? - if they are all dressed alike. That’s a liberty you should be willing to give up as well if it makes the women and children safer, isn’t it, puddles?

“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.” - Thomas Jefferson

Posted by Poosh on 01/30/06 at 02:18 PM from United Kingdom

This is the least of our worries, believe me.

That being said, I know cats who would beat the shit out of shitty dogs, any day.

Posted by on 01/30/06 at 02:34 PM from Canada

AAAAAARGH!!!!  Christ, you people drive me fucking insane sometimes!  I said that THE BRITISH ATTITUDE TOWARDS DIVISIVE SOCIAL ISSUES LIKE ABORTION is better than the way we look at it.  I said that about ten times during the course of that discussion.  Now I’ve said it 11.

I feel your pain.

-- Bill.

Posted by on 01/30/06 at 03:01 PM from United States

Judge:  Call the docket.

Clerk:  First up your Honor, State v. Feemish, charged with wanton and reckless disregard for feline comfort, in that defendant did knowingly and wilfully suffer a Persian cat known as Muff to be harried by a canine known by the name of Killer.

Judge:  Madame Prosecutor?

Prosecutor:  You Honor, defendant was witnessed allowing Killer, a brutish dog of a breed with violent tendencies, to wit: poodle, in unlawful and harmful proximity to the cat Muff.  This antisocial behavior was winessed by no less than two members of the Benign Animal Treatment Squad, and resulted in Muff hissing and arching her back.

Judge:  Defense?

Defense Attorney:  Your Honor, we maintain that no crime was comitted in that the observed behavior is innate and natural for both animal parties involved.  Additionally, no actual harm was visited on the cat.  Move to dismiss.

Judge:  Counselor, you know quite well that ‘natural order’ defenses are not allowed.  Find a more suitable defense or plead out.

Defendant:  Judge, the dog was just doing what dogs do nat…

Judge: (BANG! ) Quiet, and quiet now!

Defendant:  But the cat wasn’t hur…

Judge:  (BANG BANG!!) Contempt, fined $2000. Remand to custody.  Bailiff, take charge of the prisoner.  And may I say sir, that you will find no leniency in my court for such cruel and unusual acts as those with which you have been charged.  May the State help you if we find that you have been ignoring the animal rights, such as properly timed walkies, playmate time, and bedtime story reading.  Next case.

Clerk:  Second, State v. Bungie…

Posted by Drumwaster on 01/30/06 at 03:05 PM from United States

Benign Animal Treatment Squad

The Benign Animal Treatment Squad Home Invasion Team?

(snerk)

Posted by on 01/30/06 at 03:47 PM from United States

Benign Animal Treatment Squad Home Invasion Team

I knew something was missing…

Next entry: Limited Limited Government

Previous entry: Brokeback

<< Back to main