Theresa May to legalise Ivory trade?(50 Posts)
Are people really ok with this? Can this, as well as fox hunting, etc really just be glossed over?
I don't know what to say except I'm frightened of what we're becoming here in the UK
Does every actual thing have to be detailed in a manifesto? Maybe it goes without saying. Do Labour, Libdem actually say anything?
I don't know, but if I was to vote I would most definitely want the facts. I couldn't just take it in faith that this isn't going to happen.
I have done a bit of snooping around and many sources seem to agree upon them lifting the current ban.
If anyone can supply further info I would be very grateful.
I honestly don't know what is wrong with that woman.
I'm more scared that she seems to be able to express these views freely and feel safe on the knowledge that it will not make her less popular
I've just signed a petition OP. Thank you.
I'm more amazed that there are people out there that don't think these things would come to pass.
it is also unfortunate that recent events here in Manchester will potentially derail the scrutiny many of her policies have come under recently.
A sad and unfortunate blessing for the far right.
I am in Greater Manchester, I'm still in shock, man arrested in my town today, bomb squad all over the place here. I just can't get with the concept that anything good can come from this party. No distraction, however tragic, however huge, can alter that for me.
They aren't getting rid of the CITES rules which prohibit the sales of ivory or ivory objects made after 1947.
What the Conservatives are dropping is a proposal to ban all ivory sales including antiques. So old snooker balls, scrimshaw, carved antique ivory would all be banned from sales. It would cause some antique collections to become worthless and save not 1 elephant.
thanks for your input. Can you help my over tired mind a bit though? I may be a tad confused - but it reads as they are prohibiting sales of ivory after 1947 yet ARE dropping a proposal to ban all ivory sales.
Can you see where I'm lost?
Apologies if I'm missing something.
There was a proposal to ban all sales of ivory.
Currently you can only sell ivory that was worked into its present form before 1947 - that is part of the UN CITES agreement that protects endangered species. That is a UN rule and isn't changing.
It was the proposal to extend this rule in the UK to all ivory objects regardless of age that has been dropped. So things like the Lewis Chessmen could never have been bought for the British Museum.
Presumably someone finally thought about it. I fail to see how banning the sale of an ivory carving from 1250 AD saves an elephant.
Given the number of chess, draught and domino sets in the UK made out of ivory the law would have made it criminal to sell those, and if you are a layman its sometimes quite hard to tell the difference between bone, ivory and rhino horn (which is keratin).
Thanks for the clarification! That is helpful.
Sadly I still think it sends an unpleasant message. Along with the fox hunting issue I can't say anything kinder than that they are a cruel, destructive lot.
Thank cdtaylor. This thread is a perfect example of the dangers of social media, with everybody getting the wrong end of the stick with great enthusiasm, until someone who has actually done some research on it comes along. The proposal sounds totally reasonable to me.
CD, I don't think your post makes sense. You say in one sentence that the sale of ivory worked before 1947 is part of the the UN CITES agreement and is staying the way it is, and in the next sentence you say that there is a proposal to extend this rule to all ivory objects regardless of age, so that the Lewis Chessmen etc etc.
"Currently you can only sell ivory that was worked into its present form before 1947 - that is part of the UN CITES agreement that protects endangered species. That is a UN rule and isn't changing.
It was the proposal to extend this rule in the UK to all ivory objects regardless of age that has been dropped. So things like the Lewis Chessmen could never have been bought for the British Museum."
So - what IS proposed (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the sale of antique ivory, chessmen, etc, is staying (as they were worked before 1947 and you say that agreement's not changing). But that a proposed ban on the sale of newer ivory is dropped. So that items formed from new ivory will be sellable. So that means elephants will still be poached as there will be no ban.
This does not sound reasonable to me. The way it is, where items formed before 1947 can be sold, sounds reasonable. Why is TM wanting to change it?
I'm confused too. If you look here researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2017-0034 it says:
On 21 September 2016, the Government announced plans to ban the sale of ‘worked’ ivory produced since 1947. Ornaments and works of art dating prior to 1947 are classified as ‘antique’ and trade in them will be permitted. DEFRA plan to consult with environmental groups, industry and other relevant parties to establish how and when such a ban could be introduced, as well as any necessary exemptions “early in 2017”.
The Government has been criticised by several conservation groups for not going far enough in the ban.
And the petition says:
The Conservatives pledged to shut down the UK’s domestic ivory market in their manifesto for the past two elections. 30,000 African Elephants are slaughtered a year for their tusks yet, the government has still not outlawed the trade.
Okay so further reading has clarified this a bit for me.
The problem is not antique vs modern in a sense of which ban is in place, but the problem is that it's very easy to get around this "ban" as traders can currently "claim" that any ivory is pre-1947, without having to show any evidence. This is widely known
So even though she might not have to say outright that she doesn't oppose the slaughter of these poor creatures, it's pretty obvious she knows the ramifications of refusing a total ban on the ivory trade in the UK.
Considering this ban has been part of their manifesto for ages, it's just another shitty cruel ridiculous move on TM''s part.
Nyx said: So - what IS proposed (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the sale of antique ivory, chessmen, etc, is staying (as they were worked before 1947 and you say that agreement's not changing). But that a proposed ban on the sale of newer ivory is dropped. So that items formed from new ivory will be sellable. So that means elephants will still be poached as there will be no ban."
No this isn't right - cdtaylornats original explanation was actually clearer. Currently you can not sell ivory worked AFTER 1947, but can send stuff older than that (faking age issue aside). The proposal was to make it illegal to sell ANY ivory of any age. That's what's not now explicitly in the manifesto.
This means things will stay as they are - you can sell old Ivory stuff but not new.
There is no way that it will become legal to sell newer Ivory and this isn't being suggested (even tho the article clearly wants you to think it is)
I have to say this seems like the metro (if they started it) have an agenda as its not clearly reported at all and is quite misleading. As lucydogz says - the dangers of social media right here!
I have to disagree and feel the negative views on this are justified
The reason is because the reality is different to the political glossing over. It is fairly well known and certainly will be known to the conservative's (of course) that the post 1947 ban isn't as righteous as it appears when they have left it so easy to manipulate and override.
China said they will ban all ivory trade. We should be leading the way on this, but we're not even following progression.
Thanks for the new contributions.
I'm just speechless as usual with these c*nts.
Same here Rabbit
It is actually farcical to me that they can be and stay in power.
here is a Guardian article putting forward the pros and cons of legalising the ivory trade in order to halt elephant poaching.
It may or may not work, but I think it is clearly an attempt to protect elephants rather than getting behind their widespread slaughter.
It sounds very odd but it is a theory I have heard put forward by people who work in this area.
Very misleading thread subject - when will the masses learn that not everything printed in the Metro, the 'independent and the 'guardian' or posted online is the 'whole truth'
Do your own research - and stop spreading half-truths!
Ivory poaching is wrong. I don't need a newspaper to tell me that. We should be progressive in our attitude towards this as other countries are beginning to be, we should not be going backwards or even static in our laws toward this.
Also regardless of whether something reported is the whole truth, it is a fact that dodgy ivory dealings are easily made under the current laws, and therefore IMO the government has clearly dropped this law knowing full well the realistic message it sends about ivory poaching .
Cherries - tell me how banning the sale of an 1850s miniature painted on ivory will save on elephant?
Perhaps China would do better banning rhino's horn and tiger balm sales which are impacting endangered species.
Cherries - it's pretty obvious she knows the ramifications of refusing a total ban on the ivory trade in the UK
What do you think the "ramifications" are - other than destroying the worth of ivory collections? I think the ramifications are that within a lifetime hundreds of pieces of ivory art will be sold offshore.
I think that it is complicated and there are different views on what will work.
What is not in dispute is that the status quo has resulted in huge amounts of illegal and horrific poaching.
But hey, those Tories are such cunts that they even like killing elephants makes a better headline, doesn't it?
Hmm, I think this story has been misleading then. Nothing has changed basically.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now »
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.