to think the Daily Mail should not show photographs of horrific animal cruelty on its website?

[bibbitybobbityhat]

I would urge you not to look, but the fucking DM have a still from I guess an animal rights video showing how fur is farmed (from apparently live animals) for the manufacture of fake Uggs.

How can I complain to them about this? I do not want to go back to their vile home page to seek out an email address, and I am not going to click on the link so that I can comment below.

I am beyond disgusted - with the vile Mail as much as the animal torturers.

Not naive? Despite making sweeping statements that you don't believe ANY videos or literature provided by Animal Rights (which btw isn't an organisation in itself but a huge number of individuals and small groups, making your assertion all the more silly).

You say that you have "vast experience of Animal Rights" (whatever that is considering the huge numbers and variety of supporters mentioned above) - is that from the inside, ruby?

Care to share?

My worry is that casting doubt on AR videos as 'made up', 'lies', 'exaggerated' etc etc allows people to turn a blind eye to this horrific problem. It's all very well saying you don't buy fake uggs, (nor do I) but there is a market for them obviously.

Imagine a girl seeing some fake uggs on ebay with all the fur trimmings - a fleeting image goes through her mind of something in the DM and skinning dogs alive, then she thinks, nah those videos are all fake innit? (whilst typing in her Paypal details). Denial can cause immense damage to a cause.

Plus it's not just the uggs is it? I will be wary of anything 'faux fur' now - thankfully it's not really my thing.

Fucking French Connection have fur Gilets this season. I live in FC but I'm boycotting til they rethink their stance.

Not going to answer how one gets "sucked in" to AR activism or what your "vast experience" of this mixture of individuals is, or whether it's from the inside then, eh, ruby?

Individuals who, I might add, have as much in common as supporters of Chelsea Football Club.

I know 20-something men who support the Blues and go every week, home and away, but this fan is female, rarely gets to matches these days and is old enough to be their mother. Like AR supporters we may have a common interest and passion but there the similarities end. I fail to see how anyone can tar a whole group of entirely disparate individuals with the same brush by claiming them to be liars almost to a man (or woman) and claim too that they are not being naive.

Unless of course the person making that claim has their own agenda...

1. I am not bullying you, ruby. Please don't use that false accusation to justify your opinions, decisions or unwillingness to discuss. You don't want to discuss, fine, there's no obligation but for goodness sakes lets be adult and not play the bullying card.

It makes your claims look all the more flaky but that you probably know already.

1. Rarely is money appealed for in AR circles. Far more often the appeal is for petition signing or just for people to open their eyes and ears.

And where there is money donated what are you accusing AR supporters of spending it on? Digging up graves? So we buy spades with donations, do we?

You're talking about Huntingdon Life Sciences?

I would assume that ruby is, Narky.

Along with other assumptions on those lines...

Have seen similar videos before, watched & wished I hadn't, images haunted me for ages, didn't need to be convinced. Really awful, horrendous practices.

Remember reading that for some reason its cheaper if they are alive

"Valhalla - I don't need to justify my opinions to to you or anyone... "

I don't recall asking you to.

"I have a vast knowledge of this subject.. . I do know."

It's not coming across like that. It's coming across as one with a personal agenda who is determined to convince us all that all AR folk are liars and all AR material is a lie... and yet who can't back up her assertions with anything more than claims that she knows this thanks to her vast knowledge.

"I do think you are inclined to bully anyone with a differing opinion to yourself."

There you go again! Playing the 'Poor little me, she's picking on me' bullying card without justification. All I asked was this:

"Not going to answer how one gets "sucked in" to AR activism or what your "vast experience" of this mixture of individuals is, or whether it's from the inside then, eh, ruby?"

It was a question FGS, picking up on the fact that I'd addressed several issues to you which you had avoided answering! Please don't try and make it out to be anything more than it is.

Going back to your comments on "Divulging my sources... I have a vast knowledge of this subject..."

I can't work out if you're HLS connected or MI5. It all sounds so terribly self-important.

Ruby Stop talking shit.Anyone who is not sickened by this is inhumane.Quit with the riddles and stick to the point.(if you have one)

Well actually, who give's a monkey's whether the video was real or not? If it's been established that things of this nature do go on, this video is merely illustrating the point.

Ruby suggesting that money donated to AR causes was "used to dig up graves" was the final straw for me.

The Daily Mail is vile. However, Animal Rights activists are (generally) brave and compassionate people trying to make the world a more accountable place.

Fur/skinning awareness is a valid subject to bring to the public's attention. The only point to make is that many people are disturbed/horrified by barbaric images and videos and should therefore have an opportunity to avoid them if they so desire.

It seems clear that the Daily Mail are simply being sensationalist by deliberately trying to shock people and sell more copies of their disgusting newspaper as a result.

lylah - would you happen to know/be brave to guess how many extra copied did dm sell as a result of showing animals being skinned alive?

"I therefore suggest people only donate money to registered, legitimate charities."

Lylah concurs :)

"i'm sure anyone would be upset at the money they had donated being used for a purposes other than they intended.
I therefore suggest people only donate money to registered, legitimate charities."

You can start with RSPCA, which for example kills dogs in its care with boltguns. Not the aggressive dangerous types, not at all... but the ones they cannot find homes for, those who are passed their 'sell by' date.

I wonder how many people who donated their money to RSPCA intended the funds for this purpose.

Not a fan of the RSPCA. Not good at all...

I guess one has to still be very selective when choosing which of the 'legit' charities should receive any of one's hard-earned wages. I find LACS and IFAW pretty decent on the whole.