To absolutely loathe the increase in smear campaigns against businesses because of the halal meat debate?

Makes me think all meat is cruel now.

Sadly this is nothing new,

https://meatmanagement.com/news/major-halal-slaughterhouse-under-investigation-for-animal-cruelty/38309.article

https://www.fwi.co.uk/news/halal-abattoir-staff-suspended-animal-cruelty-claims

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/halal-slaughterhouse-boss-who-broke-13101053

For all of you who trivialise and find nothing wrong with halal, including the OP, let me know how you justify trivialising this criminality.

A secret video camera planted by an animal rights' activist reveals the true horrors of what happened inside that abattoir in a ­Warwickshire village. A report by university academics who viewed the film last year said 'intense pain and distress' was inflicted on hundreds of lambs as they were hurled into doors, walls, and floors, before being killed in a terrible way.

Activist Joey Carbstrong, who made the undercover film, has insisted it was made to highlight animal cruelty, rather than ­stigmatise Islam. He acted after complaints from villagers about the smell coming from the abattoir, and the distressing cries made by the 1,000 animals arriving by lorry at the premises every week.

Of the one billion farm animals killed in England and Wales ­during 2024, approximately one in five – or just over 200million – were killed by halal methods. This ­represents 20 per cent of the total, even though the Muslim ­population in England and Wales is nearer 7 per cent. Meaning, non-muslims are pushed to eat halal meat.

The majority of halal slaughterhouses slit the throats, while a small number do stun the animals – although critics claim the ­slaughtermen use a lower voltage than that employed in regular stunning, to ensure the animal is not dead before its throat is cut (in other words, they only pretend to stun the animals).
The critics maintain that this means the animals can regain full ­consciousness after 20 seconds, then struggle and feel pain for many minutes while they are slaughtered.

There are also claims that halal meat is being sold in super­markets without adequate ­labelling as to the method of slaughter. One social media ­commentator complained about his experience when he went to his local High Street supermarket this week to buy some chicken: 'It had a red Union Jack on it ­(meaning it was reared in ­Britain), and had a Red Tractor (animal welfare) certification on the ­package. But when I checked the code it turned out to be halal.'

Conservative MP Esther McVey explained in House of Commons in February 2026 why the meat was so prevalent: 'non-stunned' meat is cheaper and therefore, 'supermarkets and food outlets can purchase that cheaper meat without ever declaring it to the customer... Non-stunned produce is being used by 17 local councils in schools, the majority of which are not Islamic faith schools, without parents or children having the first idea about it.'

She has called for a law to label halal and kosher meat so people can decide not to eat it, adding: 'Individuals concerned about animal welfare would want to know if an animal had been stunned prior to slaughter.'

Whether a dying animal is stunned or not, an Islamic prayer is said over the dying creature by the slaughterman in line with the ­strictures of the Koran.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15593083/halal-slaughter-animals-eating-SUE-REID.html

Many concerning issues arise when considering the Islamic concept of halal. Halal is an Arabic term meaning permissible. Therefore, halal refers to practices that Muslims are allowed to partake in, according to Islamic theology and law.

In short, halal slaughter traditionally requires an animal to be killed through a specific method (the slitting of the animal’s throat while Islamic prayers are recited) that typically DOES NOT involve the pre-stunning of the animal:

"The name of Allah must be mentioned during the slaughter, and the animal must be bled completely. After the animal is slaughtered, the meat is inspected to ensure that it is free of defects. If it is found to be clean and wholesome, it is then considered halal."

The Islamic prayers must be imbibed into the meat to make it suitable offering for Allah, therefore all halal meat would contain practices and prayers that would be offensive or unacceptable for people of other faiths; therefore, supermarkets cannot possibly focus on all meat being halal. Critics argue that slaughter without stunning is inhumane, raising concerns among animal welfare advocates. Furthermore, supporting halal butcheries and Islamic-owned businesses inevitably leads to the further spread of certain troublesome Islamic practices such as those mentioned above.

Many animals killed using ritual slaughter practices are fully conscious when their throats are cut. Any fully conscious animal is absolutely and understandably terrified when a chain is shackled to their leg and they’re hoisted into the air upside down. Birds thrash wildly in panic and excruciating pain, since their legs can break or be pulled out of their sockets under their own bodyweight. Research shows that when cattle and sheep are killed without stunning, it can take several unimaginably agonising minutes for them to lose consciousness after their throats are slit. The reason they can't be stunned in Islamic halal practices is the Islamic legal requirement that argue that stunned animals do not bleed out in exactly the same way as non-stunned animals.

See graphic video documenting halal slaughterhouse practices.

PETAUK considers halal just animal cruelty by another name:

https://www.peta.org.uk/blog/ritual-slaughter/

Having read up on this further, my understanding is that it isn't about the animal being conscious to hear the prayer. It's fine for them to be unconscious, it is simply that the stunning should not kill them first. Of course, there will be different interpretations by different scholars, but this is the position of the Halal Food Authority, which is the biggest certifier of halal meat in the UK.

As for thinking it's acceptable... I'm not really arguing that. I don't personally think it's acceptable for people to kill animals for meat full stop. I just don't buy into the idea that halal and kosher meat are unusually cruel while all other meat is somehow hunky dory. As a pp has pointed out, if you eat mass produced meat then you may well end up eating meat from unstunned animals anyway, because the unwanted parts from kosher meat production go back into general circulation anyway.

Pigs are slaughtered here painfully. CO2 hypoxia, they are in a lot of pain. I doubt any slaughter is truely humane. A true "they immediately lose consciousness and can't feel any pain"

kosher meat isnt stunned at all. They then take the parts that are not considered kosher and sell it as "meat" on the open market.

So the uk doesn’t have battery chickens then ? I find that very hard to believe .

‘Stunning’ is not as black and white as you are assuming or portraying on this thread.

I explained on this thread earlier that there is ‘recoverable stun’. It gives a smaller stun which allows animal to come round enough to hear the prayer.

So they have been ‘stunned’ yet conscious enough to hear the prayer … and therefore be awake enough to feel terrible pain and suffering as for example, the cows are are tied upside down by their hooves, having their hips dislocated with the weight, and taking 12 minutes to bleed out with their head in a drain.

Anyone who thinks this is acceptable is sick.

https://viva.org.uk/health/health-news/the-real-offence-isnt-vegan-bacon-its-killing-animals-for-food/

The UK has the highest animal welfare’s laws in the world so you are incorrect.
Full time veterinary oversight is a lawful requirement in meat processing.
what would be more concerning if we start to import more meat products from abroad with far lower standards of welfare due to the UK not supporting British farmers.
Halal meat production has been more regulated in recent years so that is progress. If you ban these methods they will just go underground with far less scrutiny.

You think all non-halal slaughter is humane?

You're equally opposed to humane slaughter as inhumane slaughter?

I'm also opposed to people making spurious claims about hateful narratives and slagging off those who do object to inhumane slaughter. Seems their behaviour makes it very clear they don't care about animal welfare at all.

Funnily enough, Muslims are not a single monolith, and they will have different views on this. Islam, like every other religion, is open to interpretation, and there are other well established organisations which do consider stunned meat to be halal.

What we do know is that most meat marketed in the UK as halal is stunned. According to the RSPCA, this accounts for 88% of halal meat sold. Of course, there might well be some Muslims who don't actually regard such meat as being properly halal, and they will need to do their own due diligence as to which suppliers are able to supply non-stunned meat, but that doesn't change the fact that most meat in the UK which is sold as halal will in fact have been stunned before slaughter.

There are some Muslims who refuse to eat machine slaughtered and go check if the meat was hand slaughtered

Yes, I agree with this. The RSPCA has said that non-stunning causes unnecessary distress and suffering. The Farm Animal Welfare Council and Compassion In World Farming also oppose non-stunned slaughter.

Exemptions to this on religious grounds are unacceptable.

According to the Halal Monitoring Committee only non-stunned meat is halal. That's what it says on their website. So I'm a bit dubious about the claim that the majority of halal meat is stunned.

Re the first paragraph - I'm not talking about a scenario in which there is any overlap between people who care about animal welfare and those who eat mass produced meat. Have you actually read any of my posts? I have repeatedly argued that it is not possible for the two to co-exist, that is the whole basis for my argument. I'm talking about people who claim to care about animal welfare while continuing to eat mass produced meat. Claiming to care and actually caring are not the same thing....

Re the second paragraph - I wouldn't know because I've never tried. I don't buy or eat meat personally, so I was going by the claims that I've frequently seen on here about people who only ever eat meat that is produced with very high welfare standards. Perhaps you're right and they are just making it up, who knows.

Re the third paragraph, I was trying to respond to your post about my apparent failure to prove something that I hadn't ever been trying to prove (quite the contrary) but I accept that it was probably irrelevant. I couldn't understand what you were trying to get at, so I was trying to second guess what you might have meant and attempting to respond to that interpretation, but I will freely admit that I was clutching at straws because your comment made no sense to me in the context of the rest of the thread.

I have no issue at all with people who are genuinely speaking up with genuine concerns about animal welfare. In fact, I have a huge amount of respect for people who care deeply about such issues and live their lives accordingly. My issue is with those who show through their behaviour that they don't really care but pretend to care as a means of promoting their own completely unrelated narrative.

Anyway, I agree that we are going round in circles, and it's frustrating that your latest posts suggest that you haven't actually understood the point that I'm making at all. Obviously, I have failed to make the point clearly enough. Never mind.

Ist para
If there’s no overlap ie the scenario doesn't exist why are you talking about it ??

2nd para
almost impossible to get information in that regard

3rd para
your comment about vegans is irrelevant in the context of eating mass produced meat. Why are you even bringing this up

I see @EasternStandard has given up and I really don’t blame them

Without wanting to be impolite you are going round in circles, calling people hypocrites but Apparently now those people don’t actually exist / you haven't looked because there can’t be an overlap

and on and on it goes.

@KitWyn has it right
everyone has a voice
those that judge others who speak up aren’t helping animal welfare.

leaving you to your own thoughts on this one now

Absolutely agree and well said on the first two paragraphs.

but as a complete aside and derail I’ll have to disagree
we are not a secular state

it is fact
because
it has an established state religion (the Church of England), with the monarch serving as its Supreme Governor and "Defender of the Faith".
Additionally, 26 Church of England bishops hold seats in the House of Lords and the state retains constitutional legal ties to the church

Well, obviously I haven't because I don't think there can be any overlap.

What I have said is that people who care about animal welfare won't be in any danger of inadvertently eating halal meat because they will not be eating meat without having first checked its provenance.

Of course, there may be vegans who have issues with halal meat as well, but it's very likely that they will also have issues with factory farming methods in general.

I wasn’t actually asking them about meat.
I’ve never bought it

I was asking about other food products and they couldn’t even answer about them
My post was pointing out how difficult it is to get an answer

You haven’t shown any proof that those who genuinely care about animal welfare actually come within the same cohort that eat mass produced meat

That doesn't mean there's not a genuine issue to address

We are all guilty of something. Nobody's perfect. Despite that, we can all try to have informed opinions on those issues important to us, where we could support positive change. Yes, we should try not to be hypocritical. But that's not an excuse to not think or not act.

If anyone who eats meat, or even cheese, is not allowed to argue for improved farm animal welfare, well, we are all doomed. There aren't sufficient numbers of saintly vegans to deliver any changes to animal welfare. And shouting 'shut up, you hypocritical bigots' at the meat/cheese eaters will strangely not gain their support, money or votes.

The UK IS a secular state. We have historical religious ties, but these are now threadbare and merely decorative. King Charles has no legislative power. Law is primarily made by the UK Parliament, and through judges' precedents in court rulings. Not by the whim of the monarch.

The UK is not remotely like Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia or even the Vatican State. We have an elected Prime Minister and Government. Our Judiciary is independent, and British citizens, of any and no religion, are equal before the law.

How is the UK more like an Iranian theocracy than, say, a secular Sweden?