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 It was repealed by the Theft Act 1968.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

    • we actually need growth. It may be counter intuitive, but we need investment.   my example is about poor financial management, be it personal or central. I'm referring to poor government financial management.
    • This is to conflate household budgets with government budgets. They are very different things  a large part of the anger felt across the country is the decline in public services after a decade and a half of austerity.  You cut more you get more ugly anger  Of course people need to be persuaded to pay more - but that is only realistic path. You cut more you will find out the hard way 
    • The question marks are far poore
    • I think one could argue that degrading public services / infrastructure is what's led to our current, slow economic decline. We've spent 14 years trying austerity, and it's proven counter productive to growth and productivity. A successful economy and society needs good transport, education and early intervention health care. On taxes, it depends how you target them. Tax funded spending may be a positive fiscal multiplier. Taxes on work aren't great, or when they hit the poorest (who tend to spend most of what they earn, boosting economic activity). We need a well designed wealth tax (on idle assets), and stronger measures to target avoidance. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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