to think it's finally time England deals with its Katy Hopkins problem?

[Fliptophead]

I know she feeds off publicity and the best thing really would be to ignore her until she shrivels and dies of fame starvation so I apologise for the thread but this is really too much now isn't it?

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/manchester-bombing-katie-hopkins-final-solution-muslims-arena-terror-attack-phillip-schofield-a7750656.html

12-18% of animals where the meat is labelled as halal... and those animals have still got nothing to do with Nando's or supermarkets and don't need to be avoided, unless you're shopping in a halal butchers, you're not going to be consuming them.

The issue with the halal argument is that as soon as you move away from those animals that are unstunned and post links to organisations that complain about things like chocolate and talc being labelled halal... it stops looking like concern for animal welfare and starts looking like a whole other agenda.

Halal meat doesn't have to be labelled - we don't know what we are eating.

The BVA are quite clear and I have been quite clear this is about the basics of animal welfare.

The agenda you talk about is what we should be actually talking about as to why we capitulated on something that we had enshrined in law as an acceptable way of treating animals? Religion trumping science? Too scared to offend? Trying to kill with kindness and being accommodating? I don't know why we capitulated, but I think it is wrong.

If we can't stand up for the rights of animals against religious doctrine, we have no chance when it comes to the extremists who want to kill us.

I have been quite clear this is about the basics of animal welfare.

It just tends to look like something else when you protest about halal alone and not the entire fucking industry.

"Halal meat doesn't have to be labelled - we don't know what we are eating"

Well, yes we do, actually.

" I don't know why we capitulated, but I think it is wrong."

Can we have chapter and verse about this capitulation?

The halal witterers piss me off. Loads of lies, and its just thinly veiled racism.

We need to create progress here. I am not a lawyer, but there will be fair and just ways in which we can stop being sitting ducks.

We aren't sitting ducks. That might be true if the perpetrators were unknown to security services. Sure, we haven't eradicated terrorism, but that isn't the same as being sitting ducks is it? We haven't eradicated any form of crime.

By your argument, fraud still exists, therefore we haven't made any progress and we are all sitting ducks to it. Not true is it though.

It is so easy to cry 'racist' but it makes no sense.

"Halal witterers" have animal welfare at the top rather than religious preference (which to many people like me should never be at the top of any law making as it is actually made up). I don't care whether the religion is Islam or Judaism, the UK law preference is stunning animals before they are killed.

If I say I don't want you to slit the throat without stunning them because it is proven to be painful for the animal, in what way is that racist?

So, you either are just going to do the right thing (no stunning) or capitulate to some non-scientific religious ceremony. And that is your definition of racism?

"Halal meat doesn't have to be labelled - we don't know what we are eating."

That, that sort of comment, that's exactly what I mean.

It doesn't need to be labelled because it makes no difference, supermarkets don't buy halal meat to sneak it into food... they buy cheap meat, that's all killed the same way, so why do you need a label to tell you whether it was blessed or not?

You already know it was stunned and killed.

If you want to discuss animal welfare, do that, don't put in comments like that, don't try and link to organisations that complain about certification on talc and chocolate.

And for what it's worth, I know exactly what I'm eating, I don't eat meat, I haven't eaten any chicken in about 28 years... I'd be completely on board with banning unstunned slaughter and have backed the RSPCA campaign, but that method of slaughter has nothing to do with mass produced meat.

Halal witterers" have animal welfare at the top rather than religious preference

Bollocks they do. If they were so bothered about animal welfare they would be focused on the dead cheap meat, not the stunning first. And they wouldn't tell so many lies to try and legitimise your position.

And you wouldn't go on about halal meat and say nothing about kosher meat.

But contrary to what many assume, most animals killed by halal methods are stunned before slaughter. FSA estimates suggest that 88% of animals in the UK killed by halal methods were stunned beforehand in a way that many Muslims find religiously acceptable

Stop talking racist SHIT.

By your argument, fraud still exists, therefore we haven't made any progress and we are all sitting ducks to it. Not true is it though.

It's not true we aren't making progress on fraud, but there are new types of fraud (cyber crime) and we have had to adapt our laws to account for that.

The terrorist threat is also a new type of threat and I think there should be an extension of the law to make it easier to detain these people who were "known to the authorities" which is the 500 people who we indeed know are a threat. David Blunkett did try and do this - it is not new.

"If I say I don't want you to slit the throat without stunning them because it is proven to be painful for the animal, in what way is that racist?"
It's not.

However, ignoring the fact that all mass produced halal meat is slaughtered in exactly the same way as all other meat apart from the saying of prayers, ignoring the points made about kosher meat and taking about "capitulating" with regard to our laws while refusing to give details does start to look a bit racist, yes.

Walrus - I have said the same about Kosher meat. Religious beliefs should not trump scientific facts.

WTF is racist about the quote you have highlighted?

How did those law changes work in the 70's when the UK authorities detained suspected "terrorists" and sent them to prison for things they didn't do? Whole families, children. Want to start doing that but with Muslims instead of Irish?

Oh God, I must say, again, that I think KH horrible comment is not the answer. And as for "cracking down", yeah, not the right way to go about things.
But there IS problem, and its getting worse. I am not surprised to read the bit about the bomber's father being apparently appalled.
The propaganda out there targeting young people needs to be looked at, properly, and dealt with, talked about in mosque, in school, in the family, and also on the public stage. I am a total pragmatist, and need to see a strategy that might work, not empty rhetoric about "not letting them win" or " let's not vilify muslims".
I would also like to see Tony Blair tried for war crimes, as the vast numbers of innocent civilian life lost in Iraq was a major contributor to the wave of hatred for the West. That's not excusing terrorism, it's just true.

But contrary to what many assume, most animals killed by halal methods are stunned before slaughter. FSA estimates suggest that 88% of animals in the UK killed by halal methods were stunned beforehand in a way that many Muslims find religiously acceptable

What is racist is pretending you have a problem with halal meat because its not stunned when we know most of it is.
Obviously.

Bertrand - have you even read the link to the BVA?

We have capitulated on our law - in what way do you think we haven't?

what way do you think we have?

"We have capitulated on our law - in what way do you think we haven't?"

When was the law changed to accommodate Muslim beliefs?

What is racist is pretending you have a problem with halal meat because its not stunned when we know most of it is.
Obviously

So 'most' is acceptable to you and you don't even know where that 20% is and in which food?

There's absolutely not one thing that is racist about this. There is disagreement about the methods that are acceptable to slaughter an animal, but that is not racist. I am stunned (sorry) you even think like this - disagreement is not racism.

"So 'most' is acceptable to you and you don't even know where that 20% is and in which food?"

Yes you do, it's killed in different slaughter houses and shipped to different suppliers...costs more too, so the only people buying it are those specifically looking for it.

So 'most' is acceptable to you and you don't even know where that 20% is and in which food?

12% dear. It's not in my food, what else do I need to know?

""We have capitulated on our law - in what way do you think we haven't?"

When was the law changed to accomodate Muslim beliefs?

There's absolutely not one thing that is racist about this

No, not one thing. All of it. Keep lying though.

1995 I believe. Then this:

"The European Parliament voted in June 2010 to require compulsory labelling for all meat from animals killed without pre-stunning. The Council of Ministers would have to approve that legislation. The Coalition Government does not support it."