More deaths of horses at Cheltenham Racecourse. Please sign a petition.
Comments
-
Agreed. However, for the sake of argument, let's take this to a hypothetical Parliament to be debated.JamesSeed said:
But what powers would they have? Where does their remit end?PaddyP17 said:
"An independent regulatory body" implies that neither NH advocates nor horsedeathwatch would be involved. If I've accidentally called for the end of NH racing, which I'm pretty sure I haven't (that's a fairly interesting claim to make), then well I've been hoisted by my own petard of a conscience.JamesSeed said:
You could be calling for an end to NH racing then.PaddyP17 said:There are two fantastic articles on the whip debate. Blake's is a response to Tom Kerr's, but they're both well, well worth a read.
https://www.racingpost.com/news/time-for-racing-to-accept-the-inevitable-the-whip-will-have-to-go/291907
http://www.attheraces.com/blogs/kevin-blake/07-July-2017
As far as my own views go - a regulatory body would go a good way toward helping animal welfare. I love racing and I'm sure I speak for many of us when I say I am gutted at racehorse deaths.
For that reason, I have signed the petition.
'an independent regulatory body, with horse welfare as its only interest, which will take meaningful action to stop horses dying.'
Could mean anything.
The wording of the petition would immediately be challenged by several MPs, saying "well the 'horse welfare as the only interest' line would imply an ultimate ban on all horse racing in the UK and that would be unsustainable because [financial reasons]" etc etc.
"Meaningful action" is equally ambiguous. MPs would debate the definition, and whether meaningful action happens within the realm of horse racing, or disregards horse racing entirely, and so on.
Even then, a bill would still need to be drawn up and to pass. There's a lot of steps.
I suppose I'm mainly assuaging my hypocrisy when it comes to both loving horse racing, and caring about their welfare.1 -
Were it seen fit to establish an independent regulatory body, the questions posed by @JamesSeed could be asked. Terms of reference and remit would need to be decided.
So, please sign and see what government has to say on the issue.
The Government says that it responds to all petitions that get more than 10,000 signatures. My friend Fiona, who works for Animal Aid, started the petition. It has so far gained more than 13,000 supporters. The 10,000 'trigger' was, as I understand it, attained nine days ago. Animal Aid awaits a response from government.
Meanwhile, the status quo continues, with the inevitable results. Things need to change. Let's seek change.5 -
Would you like to see NH racing banned in its current form?Anna_Kissed said:Were it seen fit to establish an independent regulatory body, the questions posed by @JamesSeed could be asked. Terms of reference and remit would need to be decided.
So, please sign and see what government has to say on the issue.
The Government says that it responds to all petitions that get more than 10,000 signatures. My friend Fiona, who works for Animal Aid, started the petition. It has so far gained more than 13,000 supporters. The 10,000 'trigger' was, as I understand it, attained nine days ago. Animal Aid awaits a response from government.
Meanwhile, the status quo continues, with the inevitable results. Things need to change. Let's seek change.0 -
Signed2
-
Yes, I would. Given what goes on, and the result of what goes on, of course I would.
1 -
So you don't want these horses to exist, as without racing, they wouldn't?Anna_Kissed said:Yes, I would. Given what goes on, and the result of what goes on, of course I would.
3 -
Multi billion pound industry. Absolutely no chance.2
-
Would you like to see NH remain as it is, permanently and for all changes that would benefit horses' welfare to be dismissed out of hand?JamesSeed said:
Would you like to see NH racing banned in its current form?Anna_Kissed said:Were it seen fit to establish an independent regulatory body, the questions posed by @JamesSeed could be asked. Terms of reference and remit would need to be decided.
So, please sign and see what government has to say on the issue.
The Government says that it responds to all petitions that get more than 10,000 signatures. My friend Fiona, who works for Animal Aid, started the petition. It has so far gained more than 13,000 supporters. The 10,000 'trigger' was, as I understand it, attained nine days ago. Animal Aid awaits a response from government.
Meanwhile, the status quo continues, with the inevitable results. Things need to change. Let's seek change.2 -
I'd refer M'Lud to the "other" thread re the Cheltenham "Festival" where my views can be found.
Only Paddy spotted my deliberate mistake ....
But petition already signed via Facebook.2 -
Signed and shared4
- Sponsored links:
-
Padded whips have been the order of the day in NZ for some years, possibly in Australia too, I'm not sure. In England?0
-
The whips are made of foam. If I was to strike you with one it wouldn’t hurt a bit. The horse responds to the crack sound not the feeling.Blackheathen said:Padded whips have been the order of the day in NZ for some years, possibly in Australia too, I'm not sure. In England?
3 -
If we ban horse racing I wi buy all the horses and a big plot of land in Sth Africa
The lions can chase the horses like greyhound races and whatever lion wins gets dinner
That way the veggie and vegans won’t mind the horses won’t be wasted and the lions get fed
We can gamble on what lion catches the horse or if the horse survives
6 -
Not at all, it'd be great to see things improved. But the subtext is, I suspect, a ban.Chizz said:
Would you like to see NH remain as it is, permanently and for all changes that would benefit horses' welfare to be dismissed out of hand?JamesSeed said:
Would you like to see NH racing banned in its current form?Anna_Kissed said:Were it seen fit to establish an independent regulatory body, the questions posed by @JamesSeed could be asked. Terms of reference and remit would need to be decided.
So, please sign and see what government has to say on the issue.
The Government says that it responds to all petitions that get more than 10,000 signatures. My friend Fiona, who works for Animal Aid, started the petition. It has so far gained more than 13,000 supporters. The 10,000 'trigger' was, as I understand it, attained nine days ago. Animal Aid awaits a response from government.
Meanwhile, the status quo continues, with the inevitable results. Things need to change. Let's seek change.0 -
The petition merely requests that there's a debate about the merits or otherwise of bringing in a body that oversees the welfare of horses within horse racing. It's very different from calling for a ban.JamesSeed said:
Not at all, it'd be great to see things improved. But the subtext is, I suspect, a ban.Chizz said:
Would you like to see NH remain as it is, permanently and for all changes that would benefit horses' welfare to be dismissed out of hand?JamesSeed said:
Would you like to see NH racing banned in its current form?Anna_Kissed said:Were it seen fit to establish an independent regulatory body, the questions posed by @JamesSeed could be asked. Terms of reference and remit would need to be decided.
So, please sign and see what government has to say on the issue.
The Government says that it responds to all petitions that get more than 10,000 signatures. My friend Fiona, who works for Animal Aid, started the petition. It has so far gained more than 13,000 supporters. The 10,000 'trigger' was, as I understand it, attained nine days ago. Animal Aid awaits a response from government.
Meanwhile, the status quo continues, with the inevitable results. Things need to change. Let's seek change.3 -
It doesn't call for a debate, it calls for a 'regulatory body' with power to take 'meaningful action', which could I suspect include a ban.Chizz said:
The petition merely requests that there's a debate about the merits or otherwise of bringing in a body that oversees the welfare of horses within horse racing. It's very different from calling for a ban.JamesSeed said:
Not at all, it'd be great to see things improved. But the subtext is, I suspect, a ban.Chizz said:
Would you like to see NH remain as it is, permanently and for all changes that would benefit horses' welfare to be dismissed out of hand?JamesSeed said:
Would you like to see NH racing banned in its current form?Anna_Kissed said:Were it seen fit to establish an independent regulatory body, the questions posed by @JamesSeed could be asked. Terms of reference and remit would need to be decided.
So, please sign and see what government has to say on the issue.
The Government says that it responds to all petitions that get more than 10,000 signatures. My friend Fiona, who works for Animal Aid, started the petition. It has so far gained more than 13,000 supporters. The 10,000 'trigger' was, as I understand it, attained nine days ago. Animal Aid awaits a response from government.
Meanwhile, the status quo continues, with the inevitable results. Things need to change. Let's seek change.
We urge the government to set up an independent regulatory body, with horse welfare as its only interest, which will take meaningful action to stop horses dying.
Sorry, can't sign that unless the wording was changed.2 -
Hmm interesting - maybe I signed by mistake. Very poorly worded.JamesSeed said:
It doesn't call for a debate, it calls for a 'regulatory body' with power to take 'meaningful action', which could I suspect include a ban.Chizz said:
The petition merely requests that there's a debate about the merits or otherwise of bringing in a body that oversees the welfare of horses within horse racing. It's very different from calling for a ban.JamesSeed said:
Not at all, it'd be great to see things improved. But the subtext is, I suspect, a ban.Chizz said:
Would you like to see NH remain as it is, permanently and for all changes that would benefit horses' welfare to be dismissed out of hand?JamesSeed said:
Would you like to see NH racing banned in its current form?Anna_Kissed said:Were it seen fit to establish an independent regulatory body, the questions posed by @JamesSeed could be asked. Terms of reference and remit would need to be decided.
So, please sign and see what government has to say on the issue.
The Government says that it responds to all petitions that get more than 10,000 signatures. My friend Fiona, who works for Animal Aid, started the petition. It has so far gained more than 13,000 supporters. The 10,000 'trigger' was, as I understand it, attained nine days ago. Animal Aid awaits a response from government.
Meanwhile, the status quo continues, with the inevitable results. Things need to change. Let's seek change.
We urge the government to set up an independent regulatory body, with horse welfare as its only interest, which will take meaningful action to stop horses dying.
Sorry, can't sign that unless the wording was changed.
The only way to stop horses dying is to stop them being born.7 -
"We urge the government to set up an independent regulatory body, with horse welfare as its only interest, which will take meaningful action to stop horses dying."Chizz said:
The petition merely requests that there's a debate about the merits or otherwise of bringing in a body that oversees the welfare of horses within horse racing. It's very different from calling for a ban.JamesSeed said:
Not at all, it'd be great to see things improved. But the subtext is, I suspect, a ban.Chizz said:
Would you like to see NH remain as it is, permanently and for all changes that would benefit horses' welfare to be dismissed out of hand?JamesSeed said:
Would you like to see NH racing banned in its current form?Anna_Kissed said:Were it seen fit to establish an independent regulatory body, the questions posed by @JamesSeed could be asked. Terms of reference and remit would need to be decided.
So, please sign and see what government has to say on the issue.
The Government says that it responds to all petitions that get more than 10,000 signatures. My friend Fiona, who works for Animal Aid, started the petition. It has so far gained more than 13,000 supporters. The 10,000 'trigger' was, as I understand it, attained nine days ago. Animal Aid awaits a response from government.
Meanwhile, the status quo continues, with the inevitable results. Things need to change. Let's seek change.
It isn't just calling for a body to oversee the welfare of horses within horse racing, it says that it wants this body to take meaningful action to stop horses dying. This is impossible unless you stop them running. Horses die without jumping hurdles/fences (in racing, in the wild or when running around a paddock), it's just the way they are built.
What are the changes that you want made, if you are not calling for a ban?4 -
So are we banning horses outright?0
-
Neigh.cafcdave123 said:So are we banning horses outright?
9 - Sponsored links:
-
No they are not. They are made 'with a fibre glass inner stem and is wrapped in folded patent vinyl'. This from the people who are flogging them.ValleyGary said:
The whips are made of foam. If I was to strike you with one it wouldn’t hurt a bit. The horse responds to the crack sound not the feeling.Blackheathen said:Padded whips have been the order of the day in NZ for some years, possibly in Australia too, I'm not sure. In England?
I'm very sceptical about the sound issue as well. If that was true they could use a cap gun, all noise and no hitting - in fact to really add to the spectacle they could all dress up in cowboy outfits.4 -
Just to balance things out I had a horse run at Cheltenham yesterday and he was badly hampered and had no chance after only three hurdles.R. Johnson the jockey afterwards said “he had no chance after being hampered and was brought to a standstill so I just looked after him and was not going give him a hard time trying to do something he couldn’t and potentially harm him”
A jockey not interested in chasing prize money for himself or owners and potentially harming the horse,only the horse mattered and no one or nothing else.Horse deaths and jockey whip bans always get reported in the media these stories don’t,unlike what Anna kissed stated in an earlier post.8 -
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/sport/2011/oct/18/jockeys-whip-didnt-hurtStig said:
No they are not. They are made 'with a fibre glass inner stem and is wrapped in folded patent vinyl'. This from the people who are flogging them.ValleyGary said:
The whips are made of foam. If I was to strike you with one it wouldn’t hurt a bit. The horse responds to the crack sound not the feeling.Blackheathen said:Padded whips have been the order of the day in NZ for some years, possibly in Australia too, I'm not sure. In England?
I'm very sceptical about the sound issue as well. If that was true they could use a cap gun, all noise and no hitting - in fact to really add to the spectacle they could all dress up in cowboy outfits.3 -
I’ve been hit with a jockeys whip a few times in succession and hard too (insert what stories you like) and it didn’t hurt at all2
-
Like I've said before, if the horses didn't like and enjoy it, they would of got into the sport in the first place!2
-
Easily done Bob.bobmunro said:
Hmm interesting - maybe I signed by mistake. Very poorly worded.JamesSeed said:
It doesn't call for a debate, it calls for a 'regulatory body' with power to take 'meaningful action', which could I suspect include a ban.Chizz said:
The petition merely requests that there's a debate about the merits or otherwise of bringing in a body that oversees the welfare of horses within horse racing. It's very different from calling for a ban.JamesSeed said:
Not at all, it'd be great to see things improved. But the subtext is, I suspect, a ban.Chizz said:
Would you like to see NH remain as it is, permanently and for all changes that would benefit horses' welfare to be dismissed out of hand?JamesSeed said:
Would you like to see NH racing banned in its current form?Anna_Kissed said:Were it seen fit to establish an independent regulatory body, the questions posed by @JamesSeed could be asked. Terms of reference and remit would need to be decided.
So, please sign and see what government has to say on the issue.
The Government says that it responds to all petitions that get more than 10,000 signatures. My friend Fiona, who works for Animal Aid, started the petition. It has so far gained more than 13,000 supporters. The 10,000 'trigger' was, as I understand it, attained nine days ago. Animal Aid awaits a response from government.
Meanwhile, the status quo continues, with the inevitable results. Things need to change. Let's seek change.
We urge the government to set up an independent regulatory body, with horse welfare as its only interest, which will take meaningful action to stop horses dying.
Sorry, can't sign that unless the wording was changed.
The only way to stop horses dying is to stop them being born.
The petition is asking people to vote for apple pie and Christmas (who wouldn't want to see fewer racehorse deaths?) but it's an act of duplicity by people who want to see an end to jump racing (and probably not solely for reasons of animal welfare).4 -
Any regulatory body like this would only be brought into existence following a lengthy debate in Parliament. The point of the petition process is to instigate a debate culminating in the change(s) being highlighted.JamesSeed said:
It doesn't call for a debate, it calls for a 'regulatory body' with power to take 'meaningful action', which could I suspect include a ban.Chizz said:
The petition merely requests that there's a debate about the merits or otherwise of bringing in a body that oversees the welfare of horses within horse racing. It's very different from calling for a ban.JamesSeed said:
Not at all, it'd be great to see things improved. But the subtext is, I suspect, a ban.Chizz said:
Would you like to see NH remain as it is, permanently and for all changes that would benefit horses' welfare to be dismissed out of hand?JamesSeed said:
Would you like to see NH racing banned in its current form?Anna_Kissed said:Were it seen fit to establish an independent regulatory body, the questions posed by @JamesSeed could be asked. Terms of reference and remit would need to be decided.
So, please sign and see what government has to say on the issue.
The Government says that it responds to all petitions that get more than 10,000 signatures. My friend Fiona, who works for Animal Aid, started the petition. It has so far gained more than 13,000 supporters. The 10,000 'trigger' was, as I understand it, attained nine days ago. Animal Aid awaits a response from government.
Meanwhile, the status quo continues, with the inevitable results. Things need to change. Let's seek change.
We urge the government to set up an independent regulatory body, with horse welfare as its only interest, which will take meaningful action to stop horses dying.
Sorry, can't sign that unless the wording was changed.
"Urge" is distinct from "require" or "command".
If the only conceivable outcome of setting up a regulatory body is a ban, then the regulatory body would not be brought into existence and a ban would be considered, debated and (certainly) defeated instead.
It's reasonable of you not to sign the petition, of course.0 -
Still not had an answer to the question what is meant by 'meaningful action'.
Poorly worded, vague and with an obvious leading question with no substance as to the makeup or terms of reference of the 'independent regulatory body'.
@Anna_Kissed, I respect your right to not only educate people on the untimely deaths of racehorses but also your wish to abolish NH racing.
It is an honourable objective. Just please try not to do it in a dishonourable way.3 -
Dishonourable? Please.Addickted said:Still not had an answer to the question what is meant by 'meaningful action'.
Poorly worded, vague and with an obvious leading question with no substance as to the makeup or terms of reference of the 'independent regulatory body'.
@Anna_Kissed, I respect your right to not only educate people on the untimely deaths of racehorses but also your wish to abolish NH racing.
It is an honourable objective. Just please try not to do it in a dishonourable way.
Petitions are a time honoured way to bring things of concern to parliament. It's lawful, peaceful and respectful.
In no way dishonourable.5 -
Dishonourable
- Having little or no integrity; unprincipled; disreputable.
- Showing lack of honor or integrity; ignoble; base; disgraceful; shameful.
#musttryharder
0
