to be INCENSED with the Mail Online?

[Mintyy]

Look, I know its a horrible right wing rag with a very questionable attitude towards women and this is the reason why I don't read it regularly ...

but I want to know if it is possible to do something to stop its lurid, wanton and totally unnecessary coverage of unspeakable animal cruelty cases!

I don't look at it all that often but every time I do there is some horrific story on there including pictures with NO WARNING. I can't recommend that you look at it today (very very upsetting banner headline including pictures) but I hope some of you will so that you know what I mean.

If I tweeted I would be twittering about this right now! Is there anything else the ordinary punter can do? Can I complain via the website? I can't face going back on there just now.

Of course I'm just wondering why this particular story and headline has made you angry.

The DM always has the most grabbing sensationalist headlines and the most graphic pictures.

They do put a warning of Graphic Content on some of their articles.

serenity - maybe they want readers to think that people in other countries are cruel & uncivilised?

Whether it's raising awareness, probably for some people to tut and say how terrible it is then forget all about it.

I'm more angry about how the DM treats the disabled, the poor and women, at least with that 'article' they're not targeting a vulnerable group of people.

Pyjamarama - it has upset me enough post today because I have just seen it today, if that is at all relevant?

I think Parietal is correct.

True, but they want readers to think everyone is uncivilised apart from well off white men.

If only abbatoirs had glass walls..........

Good call parietal

Would you have objected if it had been graphic pictures from inside an abattoir in the UK?

I understand your shock, Mintyy, but I'm not quite sure what you would prefer to happen.

For example, do you want such pictures not to be in the public domain, at all, or for them only to be shown in the public domain if preceded by a warning, or only to be shown as part of a campaign, etc.

OP ive just said the exact same thing to my DH then come on here and read your post! i didnt click on the article but i saw enough from the headline. awful!

MoreCrack - no, I would not.

Either of your second or third options would be acceptable to most people, I imagine.

But, this story is NOT the major news story of the day. It should not be positioned where it is on the Mail Online home page with no option of not seeing the screaming headline and the pictures.

Am I wrong in thinking UK abattoirs are heavily regulated places that must ensure that slaughter is carried out as quickly and painlessly as possible?

These dogs are not dying quickly or painlessly therefore surely cannot be compared with the UK meat trade?!

If it was about the dogs there was a warning.

I don't understand this mentality of not wanting terrible things publicised. It's burying one's head in the sand because it's easier to go through your day not seeing it. If one person who sees that picture thinks "this is terrible, what can I do about it?" and then donates to Soi Dog or the like, then that's a step closer to ending this practice. How can that be discouraged?

What do you mean Itsfab? Have a look now.

That is not my mentality at all RoseyHope!

Perhaps I've misread your posts? You said in your OP that the coverage is unnecessary. I think it's wholly necessary.

The only thing worse than an unregulated press would be a regulated press. No thank you.Even if it means the DM online.

People don't do that though roseyhope- they just read it, get enraged briefly then tomorrow it's forgotten about.

Why would it be different, mintyy?
I would much prefer the DM to lead with a story about the inhumane practices common in the UK than the story they chose. But I don't object, in principle, to images of legalised abuse of animals.

mollypup
From the Animal Aid website
"Between 2009 and 2011, Animal Aid filmed secretly inside nine randomly chosen British slaughterhouses. We found evidence of cruelty and lawbreaking in eight of them. The problems are serious and widespread. Our films revealed animals being kicked, slapped, stamped on, and picked up by fleeces and ears and thrown into stunning pens. We recorded animals being improperly stunned and going to the knife while still conscious. We filmed animals deliberately and illegally beaten and pigs burned with cigarettes."

Until CCTV becomes compulsory in these places this abuse will continue.

This government won't make CCTV in abbatoirs compulsory.

I'm with the poster that finds it more distressing to think that this happens in the first place, than the actual pictures.
As distressing as the pictures are, at least it's highlighting that fact that this gIS going on.
By bringing it to the forefront,(as upsetting as that may be) hopefully people in that country will develop a conscience and stop practicing this barbaric, sickening act.

How some countries treat their animals is truly disgusting.