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 It was repealed by the Theft Act 1968.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

    • Red purse found on Lordship Lane , I have  handed it into Dynamic Wines.       
    • Led By Donkeys attacks ‘Orwellian’ arrests after Trump Windsor projections https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/17/four-arrested-after-image-of-trump-and-epstein-projected-onto-windsor-castle-ahead-of-presidents-visit
    • One of the issues is that under this government, the so called black hole of £20 billion has, according to some, risen to £50 billion. Which will result in even more taxes. I was always taught to cut my coat according to my cloth, which would in an ideal world mean having to halt or stop projects or services until the deficit is down to a manageable level. Increasing taxes has a limit (the Laffer Curve https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve)  and also damages the economy and the publics ability to spend.  If Labour want to turn things around they are going to have to face some uncomfortable decisions on where to cut their ambition.
    • "Country before Party" is Starmer's motto. Lucy Powell, Burnham and other senior cabinet ministers briefing against Starmer, describing the situation as 'terminal', and publicly condemning him is not putting the country first. They'll be no better than the Tories if they enforce on us a new PM and the political dissatisfaction of the electorate will explode.  Labour needs to get its house in order, but there are too many factions and, just like the Tories at the end, it doesn't know what it is anymore. I think the situation is unsolvable.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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