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 It was repealed by the Theft Act 1968.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

    • Going to be really inconvenient for folk to go that way as has been stated.. why not just move to Camberwell which I would assume is abit nearer and better travelling wise or have vets in both places from Lordship Lane Branch.. Must have been massive flood if going to take two months to dry out, electrical tests to make sure all good… From upstairs? Or where?
    • @selector73 Thanks!  Because we want him to be treated by the vets that know him we will have to get to the New X branch because thats where the team are based until LL reopens. Thank you again 🙏
    • There's 1 in camberwell hope that helps
    • Thank you !  We Will find a way to get him to New X because We owe his life to the vets he sees at Lordship Lane branch and they know him (and us) and we prefer the continuity of care because he's an elderly rescue cat who gets extremely anxious even though he's been needing monthly bloods he just never gets used to going and it can be a lengthy process just getting the sample. Can you tell I'm as anxious about the whole thing as he is??😥
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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