TURNERS ABBATOIR - RED LION

Fintan, your horses were/are fortunate to have you as their owner. Your respect and committment to them shines through your post. I agree with your opinions.
 
Alec Swan said:
Para 1, horses are not slaughtered on a conveyer belt system, as say sheep would be, because of the practicalities of the process. They tend to be dealt with singly and processed (bled, eviscerated and skinned), so there should be a Gov. paid official present, if the animal is to go for human consumption.

Para 2, the question of Bute is an interesting one. When the question of page IX was being raised, it was felt that the simple act of an owner at any time in the horses career opting out of slaughter for the human food chain, wouldn't be sufficient. What would be sufficient however, would be that if there were a drug used for horses which had "Previously", been banned and so removed from the human medicine chest, then this would lend support to the argument.

The simple fact is that Bute only presented a minor risk to humans, when administered, and the retained quantities within horse meat would be so infinitesimally small, that the risk is minor. It pains me to say this, but that Government minister was actually right!

The question of Bute was used to support page IX.

If we really want to worry about the problems of animals retaining fed substances, then we should consider that ALL of the commercially poultry which is on our supermarket shelves is fed a permanent diet of antibiotics. I suspect that commercially produced and housed pork, and possibly beef, are also fed such a diet, and we wonder why our resistance to ever more powerful antibiotics continues to grow. The only reason why these anti-bs are permitted is because were they not then the death rate from farmed livestock would be so great as to make the business unviable.

I suspect that the truth is that we don't really ever know what "Actually" goes on!! Worrying, isn't it?

Alec.
Click to expand...
Alec not all Sheep, Cattle, Pigs are killed on a conveyor system in the UK there are many small Abattoirs in the who don't run this system, there are Government Vets and Inspectors also in these places, in an ideal world all animals would be Stunned, Bled, Skinned, Eviscerated and Inspected as fit for Human Consumption one at a time, in reality this does not happen they are done one after another (not at the speed of the conveyer system obviously) or in batches, after Government cuts there have been cuts to the number of officials in these places who are no longer able to be everywhere at one time, The Vets do Checks on animals arrival (including passport checks, fit to travel and fit for slaughter checks) so are usually outside, the inspector(s) are in the slaughterhall inspecting carcases and doing paperwork, before cuts to officials there were enough inspectors to observe lairage and slaughter practices. This is where CCTV needs to be looked at, but then again who is going to monitor the footage? surely not the abattoir themselves!

I think my point was missed about Bute I totally agree what you were saying and yes we would be horrified to know what is in all our food Drugs and the list could go on! Even if you a veggie you wouldn't escape from the chemicals! The point I was trying to make was if there only a minimal risk with Bute then why has the carcase from a horse got to be held until a negative result received? You don't have this with any other species on the off chance it may had been given any drug without the correct withdraw period or medicated with something not fit for human consumption.

Personal thoughts are more horse abattoirs should open (properly run and regulated). Get back to basics with food though I know this is in an ideal world, get back to our butchers, greengrocers, and get cooking!

Another personal view I hold is all the Cancers, intolerances to certain foods, Allergies, Behaviour problems (plus many more). Could all the Antibiotics, chemicals used to produce our food contribute to this?
 
Bertieb123 said:
........ This is where CCTV needs to be looked at, but then again who is going to monitor the footage? surely not the abattoir themselves!

CCTV footage is all very well, but for 8 hours of filming, then presumably, the next day, there has to be a paid official who spends their day, trying to stay awake watching a tedious slaughter regime. If there are 6 cameras in an abattoir, would you suggest 6 officials? This current cry for Camera evidence is a complete and utter waist of time. Government officials, Vets and Meat inspectors are in place to ensure that the laws of the land are adhered to. They are the ones who are, in part, responsible.

....... if there only a minimal risk with Bute then why has the carcase from a horse got to be held until a negative result received? You don't have this with any other species on the off chance it may had been given any drug without the correct withdraw period or medicated with something not fit for human consumption.

Despite the existence of page IX I don't honestly believe that a simple signature or a demand, is legally binding. If I sell you a car, can I place within the logbook the condition that the car must never be exported? Of course I can't. When you own the car, it's yours to do with as you will. I suspect that the same applies to the ownership of a horse, or anything else where "Possession" is concerned.

With the legal requirement that a horse having had Bute administered, cannot enter the food chain, then that's a different matter. I suspect that Bute is what removes a horse from the human food chain, and not a decision made by a previous owner, perhaps 10 years previously.

Another personal view I hold is all the Cancers, intolerances to certain foods, Allergies, Behaviour problems (plus many more). Could all the Antibiotics, chemicals used to produce our food contribute to this?

An excellent question, and one I suspect which wont stand too great an inspection. The problem is that we have to eat, and we have to produce food by the cheapest route, and there's only one way that we can do that, it seems.
Click to expand...

Alec.
 
Alec Swan said:
Alec.
Click to expand...
Once again my point missed about officials in these places, and no I not saying 6 of them to view footage was thinking more on the lines of independent body to do this. Alec you must be so experienced in the matter of what goes on in Slaughterhouses I not going to comment on it anymore.

As for the Bute question? All down to trust then, same with cattle, sheep, pigs, goats, poultry, farmed game, wild game (if you can call it that as most reared in captivity from birth/hatching and of course not medicated!)How many go to market after being drenched with something then straight to abattoir? Just think whole thing is a joke:p
 
Bertieb123 said:
Once again my point missed about officials in these places, and no I not saying 6 of them to view footage was thinking more on the lines of independent body to do this. Alec you must be so experienced in the matter of what goes on in Slaughterhouses I not going to comment on it anymore.

As for the Bute question? All down to trust then, same with cattle, sheep, pigs, goats, poultry, farmed game, wild game (if you can call it that as most reared in captivity from birth/hatching and of course not medicated!)How many go to market after being drenched with something then straight to abattoir? Just think whole thing is a joke:p
Click to expand...

Becoming cross with me, will achieve nothing! We both want the same thing, but I just don't see your proposals as working.

Para1. So you're thinking along the lines of an independent body are you? We already have one. THEY ARE ALREADY BEING PAID by the taxpayer and the farmer (by levies), and they are being found wanting. They are THE STATE VETERINARY SERVICE. They're being paid to do a job, and they are failing, miserably.

Bertieb123 said:
That's ok then, lets just all turn a blind eye:)

No, certainly not. I understand your frustration, but appointing a fresh and equally inept group to monitor horse slaughter, is NOT the way forward. The way forward is that we insist that our paid Government Employees do the job which they're being paid to do. Should they be able to offer legitimate reasons for their failings, THEN we replace them with those who will carry out their paid duties and to our satisfaction.

Have you wondered why our paid officials are being so lax? Would you like me to tell you?
Click to expand...

Alec.
 
I know little about slaughter houses but I still think the changes have to come from within them regards animal welfare and respect. A cultural change among those employed and their working conditions and support structures are some of the ways I see to go from previous threads on this matter.

As long as we all demand cheap meat someone will be there to take short cuts to make a profit. Shortening the chain dramatically is going to be vital I think.
We need to realize meat and food in general isn't cheap if you want it well produced with high welfare standards and environmental impact reduced.
 
amandap said:
I know little about slaughter houses but I still think the changes have to come from within them regards animal welfare and respect. A cultural change among those employed and their working conditions and support structures are some of the ways I see to go from previous threads on this matter.

.......
Click to expand...

Such a good post.

If those who have no self respect, or no respect for their trade, aren't encouraged to see their trade as having a basis which is supported by a level of ethics, then the witnessed sadness will continue.

If we are able to reinstate, or support, a trade which has a purpose, other than the convenient disposal of our equines, which we "really can't consider", because we are spineless, then not only will the Slaughterman acquire a level of self respect, but so will those who administer to them, and importantly, so will we.

Perhaps we need to start a National movement, one which will encourage our all powerful equine and general charities to understand that their supporters demand change, and support that change.

Loving horses, as we do, should have nothing to do with being weak.

Alec.
 
Alec Swan said:
Becoming cross with me, will achieve nothing! We both want the same thing, but I just don't see your proposals as working.

Para1. So you're thinking along the lines of an independent body are you? We already have one. THEY ARE ALREADY BEING PAID by the taxpayer and the farmer (by levies), and they are being found wanting. They are THE STATE VETERINARY SERVICE. They're being paid to do a job, and they are failing, miserably.



Alec.
Click to expand...
Sorry Alec not getting mad with you just a little frustrated! Yes we do want the same thing.

Yes the FSA is failing to do the job properly I agree, there have been abuses in other abattoirs not just horse ones, I feel the finger needs pointing at management level they not those on the shop floor who are pushed staff wise and often intimidated in these places. As far as I know there is no State Veterinary Service in abattoirs the Vets are Contracted to the FSA through agency's.
 
Bertieb123 said:
Sorry Alec not getting mad with you just a little frustrated! Yes we do want the same thing.

Yes the FSA is failing to do the job properly I agree, there have been abuses in other abattoirs not just horse ones, I feel the finger needs pointing at management level they not those on the shop floor who are pushed staff wise and often intimidated in these places. As far as I know there is no State Veterinary Service in abattoirs the Vets are Contracted to the FSA through agency's.
Click to expand...
http://www.food.gov.uk/enforcement/monitoring/mhservice/workwithindustry/workforce#anchor_2
 
@ Bertieb123

sorry you did get me wrong.

"That's ok then, lets just all turn a blind eye"

This was sarcasm.

The system does start with the costumer. And many of the costumers are like Homer Simson.

A british social reformer did say this (John Ruskin)

“There is hardly anything in the world that someone cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider price alone are that person’s lawful prey. It’s unwise to pay too much, but it’s worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money — that is all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot — it can’t be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run, and if you do that you will have enough to pay for something better.”

And he is spot on.

But the average costumer will start to argue about the price no matter how cheap it is.

That is what I did mean when I did say "Discounts for a better world"

The people want to get gifts and they say they don`t have enough money.

I say as long there is enough money for the cigaretts, the pint ond for averybody in the family a expensive smart phone, new every 6 months, there is too much money.

This money could be converted into a healthy quality of life and with this also to respect of the production process.

And a part of the production process is the animal.

Nobody should complain because of a bit of bute in the meat. Most people did ask for it.

Instead of supporting factories like Tescos and others, buy local, buy controlled and buy if you want organic.

Support the local people (shops craftsman) and start to be a responsible part of the environment.

Dry the big factories out and get the power back in youre hand instead of chasing for discounts.

What goes around that comes around.

Now everybody has to pay the bill for the "discount" from the discounter.

The animals have to pay this bill long since.

I remember my mom was cooking. She did source what we could afford and she was able to feed the whole family in a healthy and delicious way.

She had to cook with brain, we have had the vegetables of the season and not the strawberrys at christmas.

She did bake the cake on her own and not out of the package.

There was a Sunday roast but not a roast e.g. every day.

And we did learn to do the same.

But now I know some people not even able to open a can without an accident.
They can`t cook at all, they even don`t know what a dinner is made from.

But they cry cheaper, cheaper.

Sick system and it does start with us. We ask for it, only many won`t realize what they ask for.
 
Here's something you can do, the government is due to update legislation regarding the slaughter of animals in the UK. Email the minister for agriculture and food David Heath or click the link to use the campaign email direct link which asks for compulsory CCTV monitoring in slaughter houses.
CCTV is supported all welfare charities and as the UK has the most CCTV cameras in the world, it seems rather strange that you are likely to be filmed every day of your life, whereas an animal in a slaughter house is housed and killed without 24/7 monitoring.

http://www.rspca.org.uk/getinvolved/campaigns/farm/cctv
 
horserider,

I'm struggling to accept your points. Accepting that CCTV cameras will put a stop to all abattoir cruelty, could you explain to me who is to monitor the film, and when? Think it through, and then reply.

Alec.
 
Fintan said:
.......

A british social reformer did say this (John Ruskin)

“There is hardly anything in the world that someone cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider price alone are that person’s lawful prey. It’s unwise to pay too much, but it’s worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money — that is all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot — it can’t be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run, and if you do that you will have enough to pay for something better.”

And he is spot on.

.......
Click to expand...

....... and so he is, and so are you, and so are we, but how do we change our world?

Alec.
 
Alec Swan said:
horserider,

I'm struggling to accept your points. Accepting that CCTV cameras will put a stop to all abattoir cruelty, could you explain to me who is to monitor the film, and when? Think it through, and then reply.

Alec.
Click to expand...

Okkkaaay.

How does CCTV monitoring usually work ?
Someone, -an employee, member of the visiting public, customer or vet, or FSA official blah, blah, blah either sees or believes something unethical/illegal has occurred and reports it.
The tape is then checked.
If this doesn't work for you Alec, then perhaps you could let the government, courts, highways agency, police, department stores, etc, etc know and they can save a lot of money by withdrawing thousands of cameras.

It is not likely that the FSA can be on duty 24/7, so CCTV would be the next best option, unless you want to volunteer for monitoring duty.
 
horserider said:
Okkkaaay.

How does CCTV monitoring usually work ?
Someone, -an employee, member of the visiting public, customer or vet, or FSA official blah, blah, blah either sees or believes something unethical/illegal has occurred and reports it.
The tape is then checked.
If this doesn't work for you Alec, then perhaps you could let the government, courts, highways agency, police, department stores, etc, etc know and they can save a lot of money by withdrawing thousands of cameras.

It is not likely that the FSA can be on duty 24/7, so CCTV would be the next best option, unless you want to volunteer for monitoring duty.
Click to expand...

You haven't actually answered my question. The filmed work is on footage, Yes? The checks are done, as the film is created, Yes? WHO IS TO MONITOR THE FILM WORK?

Are you suggesting that whilst there's an EXISTING Government Agency, monitoring the proceedings, that we have a secondary film of the proceedings? Are you suggesting that if our paid for Gov. Agency aren't up to the mark that we have a secondary film system?

Would it not be a simple matter to have the FSA agents actually do the job for which they're paid? Is it that difficult to understand?

Alec.
 
It has been proven time and time again that the presence of CCTV cameras changes behaviour. The mere fact that they are there is highly likely to reduce poor practice. CCTV does not work on the basis of constant monitoring. It is a highly useful tool for either retrospective review or remote spot checking. It is actually a cost effective form of regulation that would greatly support and enhance the current oversight mechanisms.
 
Alec Swan said:
You haven't actually answered my question. The filmed work is on footage, Yes? The checks are done, as the film is created, Yes? WHO IS TO MONITOR THE FILM WORK?

Are you suggesting that whilst there's an EXISTING Government Agency, monitoring the proceedings, that we have a secondary film of the proceedings? Are you suggesting that if our paid for Gov. Agency aren't up to the mark that we have a secondary film system?

Would it not be a simple matter to have the FSA agents actually do the job for which they're paid? Is it that difficult to understand?

Alec.
Click to expand...

CCTV is being used to monitor fishermen to ensure good practice I see no reason why MHS and State Vets can't use it as an aid to monitoring slaughterhouses.. no need for extra govt / agency body.. just an efficient mondern means of effective monitoring. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21577927


Plus there are additional reasons CCTV would be useful: Not only are cameras a deterrent against acts of animal cruelty and poor practices but they also have other positive uses, such as security at abattoirs and act as a useful training aid for slaughter men, vets and meat hygiene inspectors to ensure standards are maintained

Personally I would like to see a public channel showing slaughter .. good practice as a means to educate those who haven't a clue about how meat is produced.. there is far too much ignorance .. if the public view humane methods at UK slaughterhouses it means that UK produced meat will improve its standing with the public.. there will be few vocal fringe bods who kick up about killing animals for food but they are in reality few.. just very noisy.. the point being that if the general public are well informed they will better be able to rationalise humane slaughter rather than react emotionally when the fringe minority use emotive and sensational propaganda.

CCTV should be viewed as a WIN WIN scenario.
 
Last edited:
Alec Swan said:
You haven't actually answered my question. The filmed work is on footage, Yes? The checks are done, as the film is created, Yes? WHO IS TO MONITOR THE FILM WORK?

Are you suggesting that whilst there's an EXISTING Government Agency, monitoring the proceedings, that we have a secondary film of the proceedings? Are you suggesting that if our paid for Gov. Agency aren't up to the mark that we have a secondary film system?

Would it not be a simple matter to have the FSA agents actually do the job for which they're paid? Is it that difficult to understand?

Alec.
Click to expand...

I think the FSA officers like to go home sometimes... or are you suggesting they are present 24/7/365 ? Without lunch breaks ?

I do wonder about your negative history of posts on topics of animal welfare and welfare agencies sometimes.
 
Zuzan said:
Personally I would like to see a public channel showing slaughter .. good practice as a means to educate those who haven't a clue about how meat is produced.. there is far too much ignorance .. if the public view humane methods at UK slaughterhouses it means that UK produced meat will improve its standing with the public.. there will be few vocal fringe bods who kick up about killing animals for food but they are in reality few.. just very noisy.. the point being that if the general public are well informed they will better be able to rationalise humane slaughter rather than react emotionally when the fringe minority use emotive and sensational propaganda.

.
Click to expand...
Yikes! I see your point but I doubt those it's aimed at (general public) would watch it. I expect it would attract sickos and what about the risks of children seeing it?
Perhaps there should be abbatoir service like jury service? There would be outrage I fear.

CCTV may well have it's place but where is the reward and incentive? We expect someone to do this for us yet all we want to do is bash them and check them? Surely we have to ensure their working conditions are improved, slaughter is as good and respectful as it can be by improving techniques, facilities and training? Trust has to come into this somewhere and if we continually vilify and just use checks and penalties how will things really improve?
 
Zuzan and Horserider agree with you. CCTV could be useful in many ways including an aid for the officials in abattoirs, if CCTV is installed as a matter of practice it could be used as evidence if there is an issue and used in a court of law.(To back up any other evidence). Problem with the CCTV footage from the likes of Animal Aid and Hillside is it was done undercover and there are trespass laws which makes the footage unusable in a court of law.

I have to agree Horserider there does seem to be an issue here towards officials as I have tried to explain many times they cannot be in all places at once, if you know the workings of most abattoirs you would realise this, there are two sides to every story.
 
@ Alec

how we can change it in general, I don`t know.

I drive around the country looking for good products.

I buy my meat only from a craft butcher I know. He is not doing big numbers and the way he is doing it I like.

His brother runs a farm about 6 miles from his shop. Behind his abbatoir he has some clean and friendly stables.
The animals will also after the transport from the farm to his place be stabled for a couple of days so they can relax.

And then when the time does come they go for a very little walk to the abbatoir in singles and the job is done.

They are used to follow somebody (farm trained) and so every thing is very quiet.

The good ting as well is, he is not more expensive than Tesco or others but the quality is enormous better.
And he is able to make a living out of this and not under pressure by the combines.
 
Bertieb123 said:
.......

I have to agree Horserider there does seem to be an issue here towards officials as I have tried to explain many times they cannot be in all places at once, if you know the workings of most abattoirs you would realise this, there are two sides to every story.
Click to expand...

If that comment is aimed at me, could I point out to you the relevant passage, from an offering, OF YOURS?;

Official Veterinarians (OV) – qualified veterinary surgeons, who have additionally attained official designation to enforce legislation on public health and animal welfare at slaughter. They carry statutory responsibility under the relevant hygiene regulations for ante-mortem inspection, slaughter, post-mortem inspection, and health marking. The majority are supplied to the FSA by veterinary contractors.

You will see that I've highlighted one of the responsibilities of the visiting FSA Officials. For anyone to claim that the poor old fsa officials have a home to go too, is shifting the responsibilities of those government paid employees, and whilst those who commit acts of cruelty should face the force of the Law, let us not be in doubt that there are fsa officials, paid for by you and I, who are failing in their duties.

Answer me this, if you will; If you were on a public highway, and you witnessed a Police Officer turning his back upon a serious crime, would you not be the first to claim his negligence?

The FSA Officials are paid to do a job, and whilst there are slaughtermen who know full well that the man paid to monitor there conduct will ignore what he should know to be wrong, then they will continue as they are.

Another question for you; accepting that there wont be anyone to monitor the filmed footage, which you're proposing, just who are you going to blame, when there is another secret filming done? The cameras, perhaps?

For the last time, I am not opposed to those in officialdom per se, but those who are already being paid to do a job, but are negligent.

Install your cameras, then there'll be someone else to blame, wont there! ;)

Alec.
 
The Red Lion has 3 full time FSA men, comprising of a vet and 2 meat hygiene inspectors.


Should that vet work 24/7/365 while the hygiene inspectors could have an easy time and just work 12hr shifts 7 days a week.

In order to give 24 hour coverage for just one official to be present, they would need 7 FSA officers rather than 3.
In addition further FSA staff to cover during slaughter and processing periods, so perhaps a total of 10 employees.

So rather than pay the wages of an extra 7 staff, the CCTV might work out cheaper to finance.
Plus, CCTV would be evidence and uncorruptable.
 
At the two abattoirs I worked at, most of the slaughtering started round about 6am and was finished by lunchtime so I don't think the OVS would have to work quite such punishing hours! But generally the role of the OVS is to check the animals in the lairage for obvious signs of disease. And wouldn't be observing the point of slaughter for every animal. I have to say I do think there is a place for CCTV though. And if obvious cases of malpractice were to be found to be going on/suspected then the footage could be reviewed in retrospect. In my experience, at the abattoirs I attended (admittedly only for a brief period of time) I never saw any animals incorrectly stunned and everything was done in a skilled and professional way. Obviously human error may sadly result in poor stunning technique from time to time but I think these occasions are probably the minority and not the norm even at red lion.
 
horserider said:
.......

Plus, CCTV would be evidence and uncorruptable.
Click to expand...

You miss one important point. Were the FSA doing the job for which we pay them, then there would be a degree of suffering prevented. "Prevention is better than cure", or so my mum told me.

Would you defend those who do the monitoring of "Welfare", at the expense of animal cruelty?

Would it not be better to have a disciplined culture in place, one where those who police the system, actually do the work, for which they're paid?

Alec.
 
Alec Swan said:
If that comment is aimed at me, could I point out to you the relevant passage, from an offering, OF YOURS?;

Official Veterinarians (OV) – qualified veterinary surgeons, who have additionally attained official designation to enforce legislation on public health and animal welfare at slaughter. They carry statutory responsibility under the relevant hygiene regulations for ante-mortem inspection, slaughter, post-mortem inspection, and health marking. The majority are supplied to the FSA by veterinary contractors.

You will see that I've highlighted one of the responsibilities of the visiting FSA Officials. For anyone to claim that the poor old fsa officials have a home to go too, is shifting the responsibilities of those government paid employees, and whilst those who commit acts of cruelty should face the force of the Law, let us not be in doubt that there are fsa officials, paid for by you and I, who are failing in their duties.

Answer me this, if you will; If you were on a public highway, and you witnessed a Police Officer turning his back upon a serious crime, would you not be the first to claim his negligence?

The FSA Officials are paid to do a job, and whilst there are slaughtermen who know full well that the man paid to monitor there conduct will ignore what he should know to be wrong, then they will continue as they are.

Another question for you; accepting that there wont be anyone to monitor the filmed footage, which you're proposing, just who are you going to blame, when there is another secret filming done? The cameras, perhaps?

For the last time, I am not opposed to those in officialdom per se, but those who are already being paid to do a job, but are negligent.

Install your cameras, then there'll be someone else to blame, wont there! ;)

Alec.
Click to expand...
No Alec I wouldn't claim negligence, I am not into the claim culture, Joke in a part as I have said time and again THEY CANNOT BE IN ALL PLACES AT ONCE!During the investigation and if it emerges that officials not doing their jobs then they should be sacked.

As for CCTV if it there would it not possibly act as a deterrent if you were to have rouge slaughtermen or they not being supervised 24/7. Also as I said before it would be a useful tool if a breach is caught on camera. If there is nothing to hide then why be bothered about being filmed doing your job, I not saying it should be there as officials can't be bothered to do their jobs (as I said if they not then they should be sacked) BUT to back up what they are doing.There are slaughterhouses that use CCTV at the request of their customers who regularly audit the footage randomly for welfare breaches I believe there is a number of monitors around the building for all to see.
 
Last edited:
amandap said:
Yikes! I see your point but I doubt those it's aimed at (general public) would watch it. I expect it would attract sickos and what about the risks of children seeing it?
Perhaps there should be abbatoir service like jury service? There would be outrage I fear.
Click to expand...

Done well slaughter is not dramatic .. so no I think "sickos" would find it really boring ;) I don't really see the problem with children seeing slaughter done well.. it is instantaneous and not traumatic. I think this is a large part of the problem .. children are shielded from seeing things like this and it therefore becomes more of an issue than it should be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top