Petitions Review, and Sir David's 'Extinction'

 I am sorry for the lack of a blog for so long, I hope to do better! As a key worker, it has been a very very hectic time trying to keep up with the continued changes to COVID restrictions….

There has been a flurry of activity on the petition front lately, with many petitions now doing the rounds. Here is a synopsis of some, my apologies if I have missed any important ones!

Ban Puppy Imports

This one smashed through the 100k target pretty quickly. Created by Lucy Parkinson, and following the tragic death of a puppy imported from Russia in just 6 days. By allowing the importation of puppies, this circumvents the need to inspect a puppies mother at the time of purchase, something which we know is the right thing to do, but is also the Government’s own guidance. By allowing puppies to be imported,  it sends out a very wrong message about the moral and ethical duty we all have to ensure we know the conditions the puppy has been bred and reared in.

Signatures currently at 125052, open until 27^th December 2020, available at https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/326261

 

Bitch Brockering

Now another petition related to puppy breeding, is the petition to “Close loophole allowing licensed dog breeders to broker pregnant bitches”.

Due to a legal loophole, licensed breeders can rotate their breeding bitches so that they can stay within their license but always have pregnant bitches. The claim is that a breeder can produce 5 times as many puppies as their license permits.

This currently waiting for a Government response, having received over 10k signatures. To be fair, the changes needed could be easily achieved by an amendment to the Licensing Regulations, rather than a full on piece of legislation.

You can sign it at https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/330704 It currently has 14675 signatures and is running until 3^rd February 2021. The petition originator is Wendy Embisu Mulela.

 

Sol’s Law

This is a more unusual petition as it relates to an incident where a horse was stabbed multiple times. The attacker was prosecuted for criminal damage and the judge explained they were limited to a maximum custodial sentence of two months. The petition seeks a new offence of attacking an animal which would treat animals as something other than property.

Now I agree animals should not be regarded as property. However we already have an offence of causing unnecessary suffering under the Animal Welfare Act. It is unclear why this was not prosecuted as such, unless they perhaps thought that the sentence could be higher if prosecuted as criminal damage, since animals are property under the law. The sentencing in this case also appears strange. The Sentencing Guidelines are that for damage under £5000 the maximum is 6 months custodial sentence, and for damage exceeding £5000, the maximum is ten years. Where the two month’s maximum came from is unclear.

Of course, prosecutions under the AWA would be a maximum of 6 months, currently, which is why Finn’s Law Part 2 is so important, as this will raise the sentence to 5 years. The Animal Welfare Party seeks to increase sentences to ten years, and I proudly support this as their membership manager.

The petition ran until 4^th September 2020 and attracted almost 2000 signatures. You can see the results here https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/300015

 

Ban the Import of Dogs with Cropped Ears

Ear cropping of dogs has been illegal in the UK for a substantial period of time, but just recently there has been an increase in the number of dogs being brought in to the country with cropped ears. There is no functional purpose for this activity, and it is questionable whether there ever has been. The motivation now appears to be the look of the dog, i.e. fashion. This is a repugnant and completely unacceptable trend. Started by Jordan Shelley, this petition has been going from strength to strength and has received some high profile support.

The petition currently has 15096 signatures and can be found at https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/333456 I urge you to sign it.

There is a worrying trend in Parliament, particularly with the incumbent government, to hold the opinion that things should not be ‘banned’ with comments such as ‘Parliament is not in the habit of banning things’ (in relation to fur imports). Of course we have to remember that Government is not there to restrict behaviour necessarily. As we are our own leaders, legislators and rulers, in accordance with our democracy, if we don’t want a certain behaviour, there is a simple way to achieve it – just don’t import dogs with cropped ears. Or whatever else we are petitioning for. It should not be necessary for a written law detailing it. But the reality doesn’t reflect this. Time and again, Parliament has to legislate against certain behaviour, particularly to protect the vulnerable. When those vulnerable to negative behaviours are animals, Parliament’s response is not so protective as it is with humans. This is speciesism, and it has to end. Nevertheless, where we can’t achieve laws to prevent certain behaviour, it isn’t the end. We simply have to remember that to eradicate the behaviour, you have to stop the people doing it another way. For this, it has to be education, and removing animals from the category of possessions that leads to ‘fashionable’ practices.

 

The Fireworks Petition

We have a new Fireworks petition, and this time the approach is a little different (and I think for the better). This time it includes focus on humans (although it is sad that animal welfare isn’t enough in itself – speciesism at its best) and doesn’t demand a complete ban on fireworks, but a restriction on their use to licensed displays only. The Government has responded already, saying no, as expected.

The petition can be found at https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/319891, and currently has 38881 signatures. It has been started by Julie Doorne.

The major issue with petitions concerning fireworks is that what we are asking for is the balancing of the rights of animals, and some humans who worry for those animals, and the rights of humans who want to use fireworks. Many would argue that they have the right to have fun and use fireworks if they so wish. Of course, as a child I loved them. Some can be impressive. But I can weigh the fun of them against the suffering of an animal and make the right decision. Some do not agree though, and they are entitled to those opinions and to exercise their right to have fireworks whilst the law permits them. Therefore one thing that is important is to educate the public about the effects of fireworks. Certainly in Bournemouth, the amount of fireworks being used at both Bonfire Night and New Year has steadily dropped for the last two years, as it becomes very anti-social to use fireworks. Even if you don’t have pets, and therefore don’t care about their welfare, you almost certainly do have neighbours with pets, who do care. It gets to the stage, I think, when people would weigh the bad feeling of neighbours against their right to have fireworks, and decide against fireworks, even if when weighing the rights of animals against their rights to have fireworks they decided the balance tipped in their favour. When things affect us directly, like the bad feeling of neighbours, we are more likely to make changes. I would like to see warnings on firework packages that the use of fireworks severely affects animals, maybe with a picture, like on cigarette packages. Then for those who feel that you should not impose bans on activities, you aren’t banning people from doing things, but are appealing to their better judgment. I am, though, not saying that this is the best outcome.

 

Now a few comments from elsewhere in the world of animal welfare ethics.

David Attenborough’s Extinction

If you didn’t watch this documentary, then please do so. It was heartbreaking and very worrying. Carrie Symonds response was one of alarm and emotion. One has to wonder how persuasive she is with the PM.

A lot of people will have been naturally concerned by the content of the documentary, but might not really know what they can do to change it all. This is the tragedy of the commons. If everyone else isn’t working to change the world for the better, why should anyone? If you do something good, does it not get swamped by all the bad from others? Can any of us really make a difference? Generally people conclude no, and so fall into the same bad practices, and so the tragedy of the commons is perpetuated. But remember: Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little. (Excuse the patriarchal language, it is a direct quote from Edmund Burke). So for those who don’t know where to start, I am compiling a new book, possibly in the format of a diary, where each day will give you inspiration for doing something little to make a small change. Remember small changes add up. I would love to have ideas for these little things, so do send them to me. I will acknowledge those contributors whose ideas are used in the book!

Going to have my work cut out as that is now another title to work on alongside the others. Not entirely sure how I am going to find the time for these and all the other projects… but I must put my money where my mouth is – do lots of little things and the changes add up.

Plant-based Diet

I am journeying through all the plant based products that are springing up all over the place. Some are not so great, some are brilliant. I thought I would share my findings with you. There really is no excuse to not try these things if they are nice, if two food items are equally tasty but one involves the abuse of an animal and one does not, why is this not a no-brainer?!

Products this week are:

This is not bacon – They are right. It tastes like fish. Texture is good, not mushy like a lot of vegan bacon, but still not nearly hitting the bacon mark. I know that bacon is missed by a lot of people, so we really do need to continue working on this one.

This is not chicken – This is good! A definite success for the two boys who created this one. It looks like chicken, has the texture of chicken (slightly mushy, but not like Quorn or similar products) and tastes like chicken. Slightly expensive, but compared to chicken, it isn’t really.

Richmond Sausages – the best plant based sausages I have found so far, and I know a lot of people are in agreement. The skin behaves like meat sausages, the taste is pretty close (as long as you don’t over cook them) and they look fundamentally like sausages. Brilliant.

Squeaky Bean Spanish Omelette – made with aqua faber, this works very well. I’ve only had it cold, as that is how I like a shop bought Spanish Omelette, so can’t comment on how it tastes hot, and I know that Omelette has a different taste cold and hot, but cold, it is a good equivalent. Reasonably priced. Will be adding this to my regular lunch from now on, it’s a firm favourite.

Well done to Sainsbury’s for its massive increase in plant based food in the last couple of weeks, I would say at least three times as many products introduced overnight in the chilled food section. I hear ASDA is dedicating a whole aisle, and Tesco are doing well, but I haven’t surveyed them as yet.

 

Final Words

Can I please encourage you to visit www.animalwelfareparty.org – a UK political party focusing on animal welfare issues. You can sign up for free as a supporter, or subscribe for very low cost options as a member. If you are already a member of a political party, you can still sign up as an associate member.

Time to write to your MP! Breed Specific Legislation and the Dangerous Dogs Act

Well, what a hectic time it has been. Sadly, I have been unable to keep up with the blog these last few weeks, as COVID has created such a huge workload for me. That workload has settled slightly, and I am now writing a full blog on the current animal welfare related petitions which are in progress at the moment, with some legal points about these. I hope this will be ready in the next couple of days, so keep an eye out.

I am putting this entry on today, however, because it is time for us to start contacting our MP’s regarding the petition to “Replace Breed Specific Legislation with a New Statutory Framework”. I have previously discussed this in the blog and won’t do that again, but if you want more information on it, you can contact me directly. I am also writing a legal journal article on this issue. However, the letter below has some points too.

Remember, your MP is YOUR representative in Parliament. They are under a moral obligation to listen to you. We must flood Parliament with our letters, both printed and emailed. I will also be writing directly to the Petitions Committee, Cabinet Ministers and Shadow Ministers with some material which is more hard hitting than that contained in this letter.

I have produced it here for you to copy and paste into your own letter. I would please ask you to promote the link to this, rather than copy and reproduce the letter on your own sites, for legal reasons. When sending the letter, there is a bit for you to add your own thoughts, but I would also encourage you to reword bits of it as you see fit, so we are not all sending identical letters, which might look a little odd.

There is a lot of information that could have been put in the letter, and of course you can add that if you like. I have tried to keep it brief as you may find the MP will only read for 30 seconds before turning off.

If you want help finding out who your MP is, you can use this link: https://members.parliament.uk/FindYourMP

Here is the letter:

 

Re: Petition – Replace Breed Specific Legislation with a new statutory framework.

As a member of your constituency, I wanted to let you know why I signed this petition [insert brief reasons here].

A debate in Parliament is needed to discuss matters beyond simply repealing BSL. These have been highlighted by discussions around the petition as follows:

·       * Why should specific breeds be targeted? Research evidence is building that breed of dog is not an indicator of aggression as highlighted by the RSPCA, Blue Cross and many academics.

·       * When assessing whether a dog is dangerous, it should be decided promptly, and by experts.

·       * There is no need to detain dogs pending investigation as to type or level of risk. It is an insult to the Rule of Law that a person is deemed guilty of owning a banned or dangerous dog before it has been established that this is the case. Recent research suggests that the cost of running the DDA system costs the tax payer over £3 million per year. When the dogs are detained, there should be a strict time limit, as the psychological harm caused to the dog is unnecessary suffering. Some have even been mistreated or neglected, for which photographic evidence is available.

·       * We hear of numerous cases where frightened dog owners are told to sign papers surrendering their dog to the police, in order to avoid having to go to court. The dogs can then be destroyed without a court order. They were not told the full consequences of signing.

·       * An independent review of Dog Liaison Officers must be conducted. There have been many concerns of over-zealous officers, and a diverse range of ideas and beliefs by these officers as to how to deal with a dog detained under the DDA.

·       * Ownership of the dog should never be transferred away from the owner pending investigation, the dog should remain the property of the owner, who should then also be allowed to instruct veterinary care as necessary.

·       * When the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was passed, and when Breed Specific Legislation was created, evidence which stated which breeds were the most likely to cause fatalities was not given full attention. 

All these issues have supporting evidence which the petition originator, Mr Gavin Ridley, could furnish you with upon request. He can be contacted at gsrlegaladvice@gmail.com or on social media (Twitter) @GavinSRidley.

Yours sincerely

Reflections on the Yulin Lychee and Dog Meat Festival

I must warn you, prior to reading this, that there is extremely distressing content, and your discretion in reading it is advised. If you tend to get upset by reports of animal abuse, and I know it can be really hard to deal with once you have read it, then you might want to give this week a miss.

So. This week, as I sit here writing this, Yulin is once again taking place. I feel sick knowing that right now, hundreds of dogs are being boiled alive, skinned alive and blow torched alive, as they are every other hour of the day for all these days, in the tens of thousands. I have watched videos this week and recently and have seen perhaps the vilest cruelty. I cannot imagine what greater pain there can be, or a more horrible way to die. One particularly distressing video showed a dog, hog tied and in a boiling pan of water. As the person inflicting this torture moved around the dog, its tail wagged. Maybe this was either an involuntary reaction of the nerves, or an appeasement gesture, begging for mercy, which never came. I hope that the dog died quickly, as with them all, but something tells me this is unlikely.

If we had news of a serial killer, and details were released that they were skinning their victims alive, or boiling them, or blow torching them, we would consider them the worst of all psychopaths. We would take in all the information, and talk about it. When it’s dogs, we have a curious tendency to shut our eyes and ears to it. We try not to think about it. Perhaps it hurts us more when it is animals. But the consequence is we don’t do anything. Year after year, Yulin occurs again.

So what can we do? Sure, there are the petitions. I think there was some poignancy when along with a group of humans, four dogs, rescued from Yulin, delivered a 1.5 million signature strong petition to the Chinese Embassy in London. But can this work?

As you may have heard, and certainly as I mentioned in my last post, China removed dogs from the official livestock list, rendering it illegal to farm dogs. As predicted though, this has not stopped Yulin. China mentions that, as Yulin is not State run, there is some issue with intervening. They do not have the incentive to ban it. What incentive can there be?

 

All those people horrified by Yulin could boycott China. Do any of them really take care in what they purchase? As sales in Chinese produced merchandise drop due to coronavirus, it certainly is possible. Yet when it comes to the dog meat trade, I am not so sure that people follow through with their disgust. I have to wonder why. Maybe it is wrong to target the many people in China who oppose the dog meat trade by affecting their business, but the point is a message needs to be sent that, whilst every State is free to fulfil self-determination, so we are free to refuse to trade with them. I am afraid that in this World, money talks.

I have read much discussion about the dog meat trade, and there are many threads which appear, just a couple of which I mention here.

·         "China is free to eat dog meat, if that is what they want to do." True, although over 60% of Chinese people, according to a recent survey, oppose the trade.

·         "It is yet another example of Western Imperialism to try to end the trade." This is an argument I come across all the time in international human rights law. With some issues, maybe it is wrong for a Western democratic view to prevail over the East, but with others, such as the right to life, it is a common thread of humanity. And that is what is at stake here too. It is inhumane to relish the torture of an animal in the perverse belief it makes them taste better. If an animal is to die to feed a human, then let it be with dignity. This is not a peculiarly Western view. This is a human view.

·        " It is wrong to say what animals can and cannot be eaten." To those that then claim they don’t eat any animals, I have even seen the come back that they eat plants and bacteria, and therefore are just as judgmental on who can live and die. Firstly, let us consider the taking of non-animal life. No one can seriously say that there is no difference between a sentient animal and a lettuce. I won’t even give time to that argument. Secondly, there is the argument that if we eat cows and pigs, then we cannot argue against dog meat. I used to eat meat, and yet felt strongly about the dog meat trade. I did, and still do, believe there is a big difference and not just a cultural one. However, I did become a vegetarian to avoid the hypocrisy.

So why not dogs? Am I just saying that we should ban the cruel deaths and allow the dog meat trade? We are not going to create a vegan world in the near future, so certainly we should at least end the torture if not the trade. Some research suggests that dogs have conscious self-awareness (see the University of Portsmouth. I hope to add to this at some point). This would certainly raise questions over whether we should be killing them to eat them. Other research is now suggesting other species also have self-awareness. However, I do feel there is a difference with dog meat, and quite simply, it is the betrayal.

Dogs are unique. We did not domesticate dogs. All scientific evidence points towards a gradual friendship, built between wolves and humans. It was a 50-50 relationship where both parties decided they wanted to know the other. True friendship. Research is suggesting this took place perhaps 30,000 years ago, perhaps even in China somewhat ironically. Since that time, dogs have evolved away from wolves, they try to copy us, they can read our emotions, they have unique methods to communicate with us that they don’t use with each other. Other than us, they are the only species that forms a stronger bond with another species, us, than with their own. They have been given royal burials with their own tombs in Egypt. What went wrong? I am not saying that it is right to eat other animals, but that there is a good reason why humans should not be eating dogs.

There is a fundamental, qualitative difference between dogs and all other animals. They are our friends.

That’s all for this week. It doesn’t seem right to talk about anything else.

Tuk’s Law and The London Retired Police Dogs Trust

Gosh, not sure where the time has been going, but I seem to be rushing all over the place fighting to get through the daily list of tasks! I need to keep today’s blog entry brief, although I know that won’t happen….

In the news this week we see that China has published its list of authorised species for raising in agriculture. Any animal not listed is not authorised to be sold for consumption (my knowledge of Chinese Law is pretty much non-existent, so please don’t rely on my analysis). Dogs are no longer listed, and so this has been hailed as a great step forward in ending the dog meat trade. Sadly, there is no sign that Yulin has been cancelled. Cats are not listed on the published agriculture list, and to my knowledge never have been, yet are still eaten. So there are some genuine concerns that this move is more political game play in the international arena than it is actual progress. Still, it keeps the issue alive, and that in itself works wonders in keeping animals alive too.

Also in the news are the protests springing up world-wide in response to the killing of George Floyd. Firstly, Black Lives Matter. This is beyond doubt, and as a human rights lawyer I am appalled at this wanton loss of life. I also do not comment on whether the protests are right or wrong. However, it is completely unacceptable to throw bottles and bikes at police horses. There is no need for violence against police for the purposes of protesting, and there certainly is no need for violence against service animals who do not consent to even perform their work. This does raise the issue of whether animals should be in service, and I am leaving that discussion for another time. But for now, let us all condemn the actions of any protestors using violence against service animals, as there is no need for it in order to protest for racial equality.

Now I mentioned that I would be focusing on a petition each week, so this week I am bringing your attention to Tuk’s Law. This is named after a young rescue dog who was presented to a vet for euthanasia by a person who was not registered on the microchip. The dog was put to sleep without referring to the person who actually was registered. This is because there is no duty on a veterinary surgeon to scan the microchip of the dog.

I am horrified to hear that a cat has been euthanised by a neighbour, and a dog by the owner’s ex partner out of spite. As these people were not registered on the microchip, these deaths could so easily have been avoided. Tuk’s Law petition

asks that it be made compulsory for vets to scan microchips, to seek authorisation by the named persons only, and if there is a second name registered, they should be contacted too. Due to the difficulties in ensuring this practice of scanning takes place, it needs to be given the force of law.

Tuk’s Law is extremely important and I implore you all to sign it as soon as you can, and share that you have done so, so that others may do so. It is available at https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/300025

Currently, the petition has 33677 signatures and has until 4thSeptember 2020 to obtain the 100k signatures needed.

This is not the same as Fern’s Law which also deals with scanning microchips. I will discuss that petition next time.

Now to highlight the work of a charity to you. This week I am bigging up The London Retired Police Dogs Trust (LRPD UK), as this seems rather fitting with the issues surrounding service animals this week. We definitely owe service animals a lot of gratitude. LRPD (UK) is a charity that organises pensions for retired police dogs in the London area, and has Dame Judi Dench as its patron. Often, the handler would like to keep their dog after the dog has retired, which I am sure we can all appreciate, however they may not have the funds they need for things like veterinary care. These dogs do not get pensions! It is quite some oversight that we make these dogs work for us, but there is no provision for them by the State. That is where organisations like LRPD (UK), and the soon to be constituted Wessex Area Service Animal Pensions (WASAP), come in. LRPD (UK) is a great charity, and I had the great honour of presenting alongside them at the APDAWG Unsung Heroes event earlier this year. Please visit their website, and help out with donations etc, if you can. Their website is http://lrpd.uk/

As animal justice and ethical thought involves more than just law and helping pets, but also needs us to consider sustainability and the ecosystem at large, I thought it might also be nice to share with you a vegan recipe I have used recently. My partner is on slimming world but unlike me is not vegetarian or vegan, so it can be a challenge to find something we can both eat! I adapt Slimming World recipes where I can. Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn’t, however this recipe definitely does I think. What is also great is that this is from their five ingredient recipes, so although it has been adapted to include more, it is still pretty minimal.

Spicy Cauliflower Bake

You need: Cauliflower (1 large head serves two, well in our house), ready mixed spice sachet (we use Moroccan spices), 1 tin of chickpeas (drained), 1 pack of mixed cherry tomatoes, one pack of Quorn chunks (frozen best, so they hold their shape), 1 small pack of spinach.

How to make it: This is really easy! Cut the cauliflower into large florets and boil these until ¾ cooked. Meanwhile make a slightly runny paste out of the spices and water. Toss the quorn chunks in this paste. Place the partially cooked cauliflower into a roasting dish that has been sprayed with low calorie spray, and place the quorn chunks in amongst this. Pour the rest of the spice paste over the cauliflower. Roast in the oven, mixing the contents once or twice, and after 15 minutes add the tomatoes and chickpeas. Roast for a further 15 minutes. Just before it is ready, pour boiling water over the spinach, draining through a sieve. Serve the bake by placing the wilted spinach over it, and serve with a jacket potato or similar if you need a bit extra.

 

This time next week, when I next publish a blog entry, the Breed Specific Legislation should have reached its 100k target. In fact, this should be later today, as it now has 98543 signatures!

You are welcome to comment below, but please #bekind to each other.

Pet Theft Petition and Charity Nowzad

As the petition calling for a revamp of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and Breed Specific Legislation goes from strength to strength (just over 60000 signatures at the time of writing), I thought it would be nice to, over the next few weeks, feature a different petition each week. So this week I am highlighting the petition to introduce an offence of pet theft. This petition is running for the third time, due to the ending of previous Government sessions. The last run of the petition gained 117453 signatures and was due to have a debate in Parliament. This did not happen, and the General Election in 2019 cancelled the petition. The petition is now running again.

Whilst theft of pets is covered by the Thefts Act 1968, an offence for which the maximum penalty is 7 years, the sentences actually imposed do not reflect the effects of this crime on the human victim. Often a non-custodial sentence, it is an insult that many only receive small fines whilst still not providing any information on the whereabouts of the stolen pet.

It is clear that the sentencing for pet theft is inadequate because the sentencing guidelines make the approach too lenient. It is even more of an insult that the human victim, experiencing intense emotional distress, has to sit in court and see this kind of weak punishment given out. To many, pets are family. I know of people who have had their dog stolen who describe the emotional pain as intense for years, saying one wonders all the time where the dog is, what happened to it. Every day the pet could be alive, you hurt, until you know the chances of it being alive have gone and you know it won’t be suffering anymore. I cannot imagine what I would feel if someone stole my dog. I would worry every day whether he was in pain, or being mistreated, or dead. Or if he would be wondering why I hadn’t come to get him. 

A right realist approach to crime, in particular an increase in custodial sentences, does not always work to reduce crime. Custodial sentences rarely reduce the incidence of a particular crime, although suspended custodial sentences reduce recidivism the most out of all the sentencing options. There is therefore an argument that either a new offence or increased custodial sentencing through the guidelines is not the answer. However, the general perception of pets as mere items of property only serves to encourage thieves to focus efforts on this type of property which has high value but low consequence. Routine Activity Theory would suggest that the absence of a capable guardian increases crime. The state does not protect its animal citizens, it does not act as a suitable guardian. If the state views pets as less special than a laptop, the opportunity for pet related crime will be present and increased.

In the interests of not only reducing theft but also animal cruelty, it is essential that the state sends out a clear message that pets are viewed in a category of legal identity all their own, that they are not property, or less important than a laptop or car. It must show that financial value is not the only way to assess the worth of something. Until the Government shows it cares about animals, there will not be change for the better. How this is achieved must be done carefully. The previous Pet Theft Bill would have introduced a maximum sentence of 2 years imprisonment. This would have limited the maximum sentence far below the maximum for theft, and sends out perhaps the wrong message in relation to the value of an animal compared to other property.

As pet thieves are now targeting people in their own home and using violence to obtain pets, the time has come for something to be done.

Dr Dan Allen’s petition to introduce an offence of pet theft can be signed here: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/300071. It currently has over 17000 signatures. I would also recommend Dr Allen’s article on this issue, Spatialities of Dog Theft: A Critical Perspective: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9050209.

Now to highlight a different issue - During the COVID-19 pandemic, many charities have been struggling, not least animal charities. What I thought might be nice is to mention a charity each week that we should all get behind. Even if you just manage to give a couple of quid, less than a pint, each week. After all, many of us have been saving on pub purchases! So this week I would like to mention my most favourite charity, other than the one I run of course, Nowzad Dogs founded by the very lovely Pen Farthing. I can’t believe there is anyone left in the UK who hasn’t heard of Nowzad, but then I am biased. So for those few of you who don’t know what they do, I will explain it a bit, however for the full story I would recommend you look at their website, www.nowzad.com.

Pen had personal experience with dogs who befriended members of our armed forces in Afghanistan (I wonder how similar this is to those days many thousands of years ago when dog ancestors first befriended humans) and was touched by the relationships that were formed between human and dog. To keep the story brief, Nowzad now has shelters in Afghanistan rescuing dogs, cats, donkeys and other animals and attempts to rehome them. Some even find their way to places like the UK and US to be reunited with their armed forces personnel buddies.

Each animal they rescue has an amazing story, and warms the heart. I cannot big this charity up enough. They also put a lot back into the community. Assisting local Afghans, such as with selling crafts of the local women, education, helping train vets, including a woman vet who now trains the next generation of young men. All these things break down boundaries and make positive social change. Please support this amazing charity. Again, their website is www.nowzad.com. They also have great merchandise and run activities which you can get involved in. My particular favourite is the Snowden Challenge – scaling Mount Snowdon in October. Hopefully COVID-19 won’t cause a problem with that, in which case, maybe I will see you there?!

I aim to get a blog entry out every Sunday morning, so you have a chance to sit down and read it when life is a little less hectic, as in spite of the lockdown, many of us are still quite busy during the week. So keep an eye out next Sunday, for my next mention of a deserving petition and deserving animal charity.

As ever comments are welcome, but please #bekind to each other.

The easing of lockdown, and a bit of a catch up.

Well, time ran away with me for a little while so this blog has been somewhat delayed. A couple of issues arose recently that would have made great discussion points. However, they will have to wait for another time now.

This time I wanted to mention just a couple of points that I think are quite relevant at the moment. Firstly, and very importantly, lockdown is being eased, even if just a little. I would ask all dog owners who have been around home a lot more recently, to remember this – your dog doesn’t realise what has been going on, as we all know. They do realise you have been around a lot more though. And my guessing is they have loved every second of it. If you are anything like me, you will have cherished it too. In particular, we had a foreign holiday booked, during which time Dexter goes to see his ‘nanny and granddad’. He loves them, indeed he has missed them chronically during lockdown, and vice versa. However, he would have missed us if we were away. So it is nice to know that we have not been apart when we would have been.

So what is my point? We are gradually returning to normal. Maybe slowly, but nonetheless we are returning to normal and so we will be out of the house a bit more than we have been. Your dog won’t understand why. The Queen’s dog trainer recently discussed this issue, noting that he expects an increase in the number of dogs experiencing separation anxiety. Just bear this in mind, and consider doing mini absences to get your dog used to being alone again.

On another note, some of you will know I founded a charity recently, The Abused Pet Refuge Project (www.abusedpetrefuge.com, Twitter: @PetRefuge). We campaign/educate/help rescue pets who are affected by domestic violence. I, with my very good friend, and co-trustee, Mrs Hannah Bazeley, will be launching my new podcast on animal welfare issues soon. We aim to do a regular podcast, in discussion with each other, and others when appropriate, on animal welfare issues. We would love to know what you would like us to discuss, and of course, would love it even more if you tuned in (anchor.fm/gavinridley). Our first podcast, due very soon, will be on the issue of doggy diets. We will be looking at two very contentious issues. Firstly whether it is healthy to feed raw, and secondly whether it is ethically right to feed vegan. I won’t say any more on this now, to avoid spoiling the discussion, but for those of you who don’t manage to tune in, I will do a blog piece on that another time.

I will just take this opportunity to remind you of my petition, to have Breed Specific Legislation reviewed (see my last blog entry). We are now at over 45000 signatures and getting in the region of 5000 signatures a day! It has been the most signed petition per hour for days now. If you haven’t already signed it, please do so, and share it! It is available here: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/300561

On a final note, can I draw your attention to the Animal Welfare Party, a UK political party which focuses on animal welfare issues. I am hoping to work with them in the near future. They are a great party, and deserve more prominence in the UK political arena.

I aim to give a more in-depth discussion in the next blog. This time I have been a little busy becoming as self-sufficient as possible with my veg growing and crafting, work has been very busy, and I have a focus in criminal, family and immigration law, as well as animal welfare, so my time is often divided.

Please remember, be kind when discussing anything on this blog, to me and each other. We are here to help animals.