Jump to content

Recommended Posts

If these online petitions had an option to register an objection to the motion proposed, I would firmly object to this one.


We have theft laws. We have animal cruelty laws. If someone steals a dog, handles a stolen parrot, or causes distress to a stolen gerbil, they can be prosecuted right now without need for further legislation. This petition achieves nothing but a waste of valuable legislators' time. Please stop distracting our MP's with things that have zero chance of making any positive change in the world.

  • 2 weeks later...

MPs debated this petition in Westminster Hall yesterday. The highlights start 24 minutes in to this edition of Today in Parliament: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b85m2c


Sounded like a largely under-informed debate, with vague conclusions that sentencing guidelines might have already been reviewed to take emotional impact into account. General comments that there aren?t many prosecutions for pet theft in the first place.


Bob Stewart MP made the interesting observation that there used to be an Act dealing explicitly with the stealing of dogs, passed in 1770, with severe penalties. It was repealed by the Theft Act 1968.

This is the agenda in the Commons today:


An urgent question on Govia Thameslink and rail electrification - 12.30

An urgent question on the LBGT action plan - 1.15

A statement from Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson providing a counter-Daesh update - 2pm


A 10-minute rule motion on Pets (Theft) 2.45pm


Estimates day debates (i) Department for Education (ii) Treasury spending on grants to the devolved institutions (iii) Main estimates 2018/19 - 3pm

Maybe a counter-petition that it is cruel to keep animals out of their natural environment, perhaps fine for food and working animals, but not for our own entertainment or as baby substitutes, and the harm that selective breeding causes. Discuss.


Here's some earlier thoughts from our community https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/aug/01/should-we-stop-keeping-pets-why-more-and-more-ethicists-say-yes

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I didn't say wedge it "slightly" open. I meant to wedge it fully open. 
    • I have a rescue Spanish greyhound (galgo) from the charity mentioned above. You can contact Greyhounds in Need or one of the more local Kent greyhound rescue charities. They are fantastic family dogs. They do love walkies 2 or 3 times a day but they actually don't need to be walked too far and then they will happily loaf around on the sofa being very chill. They are brilliant with kids but not recommended if you own a cat as they have a strong prey drive. They also should be kept on the lead in local parks. They prefer to be around other sight-hounds (well my one does) and there are loads of local sighthound owners in Peckham, Crystal Palace etc and a very lively WhatsApp group that is brilliant if you need dog sitting as you can usually find someone to do that for free in return for you looking after the dog at a later date etc.
    • @Jenijenjen I assure you we are always polite and friendly too! Which is why the behaviour we have been receiving is so frustrating. The kids always leave her with a “Thank you have a lovely day”  Our concern is leaving the gate slightly wedged doesn’t stop the action of slamming it open and closed…still leading to damage  
    • If you're talking about who I think you are, I find them more exuberant than rude and usually smiling and polite. But then, I'm usually smiling and polite to them. Can you not wedge open your gate when you're expecting them?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...