- This topic has 93 replies, 39 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
The RSPCA is a professional organisation with vets and experts who generally know what they are talking about and they take a balanced approach.
…and racing has a good friend in the shape of the RSPCA’s equine consultant David Muir. A very sensible and balanced fellow who we should strive to keep on-side.
Yes, ignore people like Animal Aid and they’ll just go away….
Sorry, do I have to ask your permission to post a link to an article on the racing forum upon which I am most active, knowing that the people on there will be interested to read it? Incidentally, which moniker are you hiding under on there then? Since you’re so keen to take me to task on posting up the article, why didn’t you do so upon the forum you are talking about?
Yes, Animal Aid do get my goat and have done for many, many years. As I have said, I believe they are an exceptionally dangerous organisation and I do believe that many (yourself very much included) underestimate how potentially dangerous they could be.
Please, forgive me for pointing out that the article published in the Daily Mail was full of inaccuracies and half truths – but that doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things does it ~ it’s not as though the idiots who read the Daily Mail and have read that piece are ever going to change their minds, is it? I’d say on the contrary have they all "forgotten" that piece – more like they will be more intent than ever on thinking how cruel and disgusting racing is through their ignorance and believing the utter tripe that ridiculous woman wrote.
If the article, and indeed Animal Aid, should simply be ignored, would you care to explain why you’ve spent so much time posting on the subject before having a go at me for doing the same?
Much as I would love to ignore the fallacies peddled by rags like the Daily Mail and organisations like Animal Aid, it is folly to believe that in doing so they will simply go away. They won’t. In this world that is being taken over by tree huggers and fluffy bunnies, the public’s perception of racing as told to them by the woefully ignorant has plenty of scope to damage racing in the end to some extent.
Well, I’m still asking about McKelvey, regardless of the Daily Mail, or their strange bedfellow the animal extremists.
I ask again, did anyone actually see what happened? The Mail article seemed to give an alternative cause of injury that doesn’t seem correct at all to me.
What I’d like to know is what do Animal Aid actually want. If no one used horses for recreational purposes or ate meat, not many would exist at all.
Precisely. And if all racing was banned tomorrow, would you get the tens of thousands of animals currently engaged in it at all levels re-housed, re-trained and repatriated quickly and easily? Would you fudge – in the immediate term you’d more likely get destruction of animals on a scale that even racing at its most dangerous couldn’t match.
Ultimately, banning racing to save horses’ lives belongs to the "F***ing for virginity" category of flawed logic.
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
racing has a good friend in the shape of the RSPCA’s equine consultant David Muir. A very sensible and balanced fellow who we should strive to keep on-side.
Definitely. Firm but fair, a realist and a proactive one at that. I believe we have him to thank for the advent of headless hurdles, which seem to have found favour in most places they have been tried. I’m not too sure about his initial idea after this year’s National of having escape runs for horses along the outside of the track, though – won’t a scared loose horse just get more scared having the sizeable crowd even closer at hand compared to in the infield?
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
Trouble is GC if the run off was on the inside there’d be a danger of a loose horse wanting to go through the rail on a turn. To join his pals. See your point though.
As I said earlier, an escape route, whichever side it is put, is better than none. Outriders might also be employed on these escape routes to catch the riderless horses.
Ginge
Value Is Everything“There is no need to be so sharp”? You started being “sharp” when you chose to give me a dressing down!
This is not a “crusade” – I commented on this thread in response to yourself dragging the thread up after a few days and in response to your comments! How on earth does that make me on a crusade?!
I was also commenting on a subject which was being widely spoken about across many racing forums at the same time, which also drew my attention to the piece in question. So it is hardly me peddling my own crusade, to post up something on a forum I have posted on for years, amongst people I know pretty well, whom I know would be interested to read such claptrap and know it was out there for public consumption.
You may think I alone am furthering Animal Aid’s cause – rubbish. Most of the racing world has been talking about that article and that woman all week – and I am not talking about on this forum alone, I am talking about on course and within the industry also.
You may not see AA for the danger that they are, but I can tell you that more idiots fall for their false propaganda than you seem to give them credit for. By all means bury your head in the sand if you wish, but if the entire industry followed your naive lead then it would soon be threatened in a big way.
(btw, of course I have a vested interest! If AA succeed in their aims I will not only be without a livelihood and employment, but without the love that constitutes a large part of my life!!!!!)
Let’s get one thing straight to start with, darling ~ you started being “sharp” (let’s face it, sh*tty) with me in the first place. So no need to continually attempt to patronise me, for starters.
Animal Aid are indeed dangerous and if you cannot see that you are the fool here, not me. It is naivety in the extreme to think that AA pose no threat whatsoever to racing, in particular NH racing.
Maybe you’d like to point out to me where I said the government would ban racing? You’ll be looking a long time as all I said was that they pose a threat to the sport in the ways in which they carry on. You have illustrated that perfectly in your swallowing of their fictitious propaganda and belief they are harmless ~ many idiots will follow your poor lead I’m sure.
Even more entertaining are your laughable views that I am displaying a deep insecurity when you know nothing of me!
After your b*llocks comments and views I’d lay money on not only you being a townie but you being a troublemaker I’ve come across before hiding under a new moniker and yet more bullsh*t.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.