Sorry, UKIP, You Don’t Get To Run With The Hare And Hunt With The Hounds…

…just like you don’t get to impose necessary restrictions on halal slaughter and let shechita slaughter slip by unnoticed:

…Mr Agnew said the policy was not meant to target shechita.

“This isn’t aimed at you – it’s aimed elsewhere – it’s aimed at others.

“You’ve been caught in the crossfire; collateral damage. You know what I mean.”

Yes, we know exactly what you mean, and you couldn’t be more wrong.

Perhaps UKIP need to reconsider you as their choice for Agriculture spokesperson, since you clearly aren’t up to the job?

Mr Agnew said he believed that the policy was put forward to win votes ahead of the general election.

He said: “There are more votes to be gained, and I expect that’s what they were looking for.

“We’ll have lost the Jewish vote for sure, they won’t support us now for sure – we won’t get any now.

“But we might gain votes elsewhere – and that’s what they’re after, general election votes.”

He added: “It’s an emotional issue.”

No, it’s an animal welfare issue. Both non-stun practices are abhorrent in this day and age, and both should be banned.

If that ‘loses votes’, then they weren’t votes worth winning in the first place.

16 comments for “Sorry, UKIP, You Don’t Get To Run With The Hare And Hunt With The Hounds…

  1. February 6, 2015 at 9:04 am

    Absolutely Julia, both are equally abhorrent and both need banning.

  2. Peter Carter
    February 6, 2015 at 9:45 am

    I’ve met Stuart agnew a few times, he’s hard-working and knowledgable in his field (pardon the pun). BUT, I think he’s wrong here, and both practices should be banned.

    I guess the Jewish thing has been swept under the carpet as it is small-scale, whereas Halal slaughter is widespread and imposed on parts of the non-muslim population (schools etc).

    Halal has brought religious slaughter into the spotlight, and revealed shechita hiding in the corner.

    Ban both, and well-done to UKIP for making this policy.

    • February 8, 2015 at 8:40 am

      It might be small-scale (compared to non-religious slaughter, so is halal, at the moment), but it’s still an abomination.

  3. Ed P
    February 6, 2015 at 10:39 am

    An Agriculture spokesman named “lamb” – is that why they picked him for the position? (As it obviously wasn’t for competence)

  4. Mudplugger
    February 6, 2015 at 11:13 am

    The simple way out of this hot topic is blatant labelling. If all non-stunned meat products were labelled thus, we would all know what we were buying, and we wouldn’t be buying it. Thus the barbaric producers would cease producing it (or increase prices hugely to cover the loss of scale), which causes an ongoing downward spiral of their volumes and profits.

    Eventually, the trade would cease and those precious religiophiles will have to re-interpret their sacred texts (which they’re usually quite good at when inevitability strikes) or move somewhere else.

    And all achieved without any political-correctness grief. Information is power.

    • mikebravo
      February 7, 2015 at 12:07 pm

      Can’t have that old boy. Can’t have consumers from favoured groups paying for their own wants when there are other less favourable people out there who can be forced to pay for it against their will. Wouldn’t be socialism!

    • February 8, 2015 at 8:42 am

      And when it’s obvious there are enough Muslims & Orthodox Jews to keep it going?

      No. We have standards for slaughter in this country based on animal welfare. We don’t get to waive them for sky fairy worshippers, and call ourselves ‘civilised’.

    • Furor Teutonicus
      February 10, 2015 at 10:25 am

      XX Mudplugger
      The simple way out of this hot topic is blatant labelling. If all non-stunned meat products were labelled thus, we would all know what we were buying, and we wouldn’t be buying it.XX

      YOU would not, I would not (I only eat pig meat any way) but millions would, and either would not give a shit, or be of the “Oh well, you can’t rock the boat can you? And that mr Mustaffa w’hank is SUCH a nice fellow, he only raped my daughter SIX times don’t you know!”

      There is the other problem. The “Corner shop syndrome.”

      They move into an area, buy one corner shop, and before you know it, cousins, Brothers, Fathers, etc have bought EVERY corner shop within travelling distance.

      They are trying this with slaughter houses here. They turn every slaughterhouse into hally ally, or what ever the wh’ ankers call it, and BANG! No one can buy anything else.

      THEN come along the “Government” and say “Oh, but look how POPULAR it is! If people were against it, they would not buy it!”

      THAT is how it works.

      Jews never did, and do not do this. They have their own slaughter for their own community, and that is it.

      The suidaephobes however, THEIR aim is to force the shite onto EVERY one.

      THAT is the difference between Jews and suidaephobes.

  5. Lord T
    February 6, 2015 at 12:36 pm

    Just UKIP showing they are starting to take this political issue seriously. Pandering for votes, changing policy on a knee jerk. They certainly have fitted in very quickly and in time for the election.

    On this subject. Both of these are against UK law and prosecutions should be made.

    • Brightside Bob
      February 6, 2015 at 1:09 pm

      Wow! A political party trying to gain votes? Shurley not.

      I thought the way to have a legitimate voice in the politcal process was by winning a Parliamentary seat (via obtaining the most votes in an election).

      Apparently not. Just think of all those wasting their votes by trying to elect their preferred candidate. The way for a political party to have a say in the running of the country is to shout impotently on the outside!!!

      • Daedalus
        February 6, 2015 at 11:21 pm

        That would be “”surely not” I think.

        • Viscount Rectum
          February 7, 2015 at 9:04 am

          Of all the comments yours is the most important I have ever red shurley.

        • Brightside Bob
          February 7, 2015 at 9:52 am

          It is taken from the comedic/satirical ‘Airplane’ film. Required viewing, Shurley? Or should that be Shirley?

  6. DICK R
    February 6, 2015 at 11:12 pm


  7. February 6, 2015 at 11:23 pm

    Hmmmm, bottom line is non-stun is wrong in UK.

  8. February 8, 2015 at 11:48 am

    See also: FGM and Circumcision.

Comments are closed.