To think bad of people that work in slaughterhouses??

[RiverMeadow]

I was reading something earlier and it got me thinking about the members of staff who actually work in slaughterhouses and who see these things first hand.

Regardless of whether you eat meat or not we're all still human and I'd assume it's a job that's a very hard one emotionally... or am I wrong?? Do the colleagues just look at it like a job and not physically killing animals? It would break my heart 😭

Well, if a defence barrister gets a murderer off on a technicality

What do you understand by the term ‘gets a murderer off on a technicality’? Because that is not at all straightforward to do.

Usually when a trial collapses because of a technical issue, it’s because of something like mishandling of evidence, or a failure of the police and / or prosecution to follow the required procedures in interviews etc.

It is not the fault of a defence lawyer if the police mishandle evidence or in any other way compromise a fair trial. It is the responsibility of the police to follow the correct procedures to ensure a fair trial. If they fail to do so, they have compromised the entire judicial process. The integrity of that judicial process is essential to maintaining democracy and justice.

Under those circumstances, what do you think a defence lawyer is supposed to do? Ignore the fact that evidence may have been contaminated? Decide for themselves if their client is guilty and do a deliberately poor job of defending them as a result?

It’s utterly mad to suggest that a lawyer is responsible if they have a client who goes on to kill somebody. Lawyers have to assume the innocence of their client (unless told otherwise by the client) and defend them with all their might on that basis. And if you were ever accused of a crime you didn’t commit, you would be bloody glad that your lawyer hadn’t already pre-judged you as guilty and failed to defend you to the best of their ability as a result.

I have been vegetarian for coming up for 40 years (DH has been for longer). I also only have oat milk and almost always vegan cheese.

I really do not understand how anyone can do that work although I do realise that people may have to in order to pay bills. Lots of people would not be able to though even if their life depended on it.

All the time people eat meat someone, obviously, has to kill animals. The problem I have with it is that there are far too many undercover reports of ill treatment. It seems like some workers get a real kick out of the job even going further and torturing the poor animals.

I admit that yes I do think badly of them and could never ever be married to a man who did this for a living.

Of course those guilty go free at times. Proving rape in court is hard and defence go hard at times on the victim. Yea there’s been changes over the years, however conviction rate is incredibly low.

Oh and let’s not forget the CPS.

I have hunted and fished. Also used to have rabbits in the back garden, a goat and a couple of chickens. Couldn’t do that now though not enough space on the balcony.

'think a lot of food production jobs are physically demanding and poorly paid which is why food is cheap in this country.'

Yes but it isn't the point that it is factory work. Anyone who has seen animals been transported know they are often distressed and panicking, people like to convince themselves that it is all done humanely but sticking thousands of livestock into trucks and transporting them miles to then be brutally killed is not my idea of humane.

I don't like to to sound too much like a crazed activist but meat eaters need to stop with this 'humane' bollocks and admit they don't care about the welfare of animals because if they did they wouldn't support an industry that slaughters them.

Surely it's no surprise that are vegetarian would not want to work in a slaughterhouse😳

I previously posted above that if I see it ie the killing then I probably won’t eat it and temporarily go meat free.

A consequent poster then picked up on this statement saying something along the lines of how snowflakery this sounds.

Well, yes possibly you are right it does sound a bit strange. To clarify, I eat all foods including meat and seafood and know obviously where and how it is farmed BUT is it ok with judgemental people, to say I still eat it. Only I just don’t want to think or witness how it was produced and killed?

I know my cuts of meat as to which part of the cow, pig and lamb etc but simply can’t think about the whole animal breathing, warm, heart beat and eyes looking etc and then the end of life and start of next step in food processing.

I know people who went vegetarian (mostly) because of this feeling they felt in food production.

I am ok with eating meat and seafood because for me my parents never explained this and it is something (topic) I sort of skirt around with my young child. Obviously this meat food production topic is easily explained to young children with farm toys and visiting city farms at nursery schools these days.

For us we eat all types of food (apart from game as never eat rabbit or other game when served at university) and respect where the food comes from. I teach my child about farms and baby animals etc and she knows it is how this is food eventually on your plate.

I trust this is palatable to vegan types out there that are at times from my experience happy to attempt to convert meat eaters away. I respect people what ever they eat but should not make assumptions or judgements on others if it happens to differ from their eating habits.

People eat all sorts of weird and wonderful things as evidenced from adventures around the world first hand. I used to ride and play polo and my child is at pony club learning the art of equestrianism as we all love horses but would never eat a horse no matter how hungry if say I saw on a French menu! Guinea pigs anyone? Popular in Peru apparently!

Going back to topic I respect meat production workers and framers doing what needs to be done but trust our farming and food production is welfare high as animals are reared and killed as humanly as possible if that is not too controversial or contradictory for fellow Nutmums?

Bob appetite!

@SadSisters

Okay, point taken. I was really following through on why a PP had mentioned lawyers in the context of this thread. I also wasn't talking about people where the likelihood was that the person being tried was actually not guilty, they should be acquitted in that scenario, and there have been genuinely tragic miscarriages of justice.

I had in mind really rape/sexual abuse trials where the man being tried quite clearly is guilty but it was her word against his and the defence barrister has brought up the victim's past sexual history and this has swayed the jury into a not guilty verdict. Then when he strikes again, that must be a very uncomfortable place for anyone to be in, even if they were only doing their job. It's a job I wouldn't want to do, that was my point really, and what the thread is about.

Admittedly I wouldn't want to work in a slaughterhouse either.

Well, yes possibly you are right it does sound a bit strange. To clarify, I eat all foods including meat and seafood and know obviously where and how it is farmed BUT is it ok with judgemental people, to say I still eat it. Only I just don’t want to think or witness how it was produced and killed?

This is how the majority of the people in this country are. They make their peace with the horrors they’re funding by not thinking about it too much.

I personally think it’s cowardly to find it distressing to imagine an animal being killed and to get over that by just not thinking about it, in the same way that I always think it’s cowardly when people turn away from horrifying things because it’s awkward or uncomfortable for them to face up to it. But I don’t think it’s unusual. Lots of people maintain a strict (if hypocritical) mental dissociation between animals, which they think they love, and meat.

The truth is, there is no humane way to slaughter an animal. All animals want to live their one and only precious life. All animals resist pain, fear and death. The practice of killing an animal to use its body is inherently, unavoidably inhumane.

There is no humane way to slaughter an animal
It's not just the slaughtering though, it's the conditions they are kept in
We can only have affordable meat if we inflict unimaginable cruelty and suffering upon the creatures that we comsume

Most I dealt with couldn't read or write well
and that's why the country has to have a good supply of people who don't receive a proper education, because otherwise how would we get anyone to work in the worst jobs that no one else wants to do🤷🏼‍♀️
Education is dangerous it gives people ideas and makes them hard to control, keep them dumb and you can make them do the shit jobs😉

Lots of people maintain a strict (if hypocritical) mental dissociation between animals, which they think they love, and meat

I think it's taught if you're raised in an Omni family. I think I remember asking my parents why it's ok to kill and eat animals and I don't remember what the answer was but it would have been along the lines of "it's ok because that's what they're for". But whenever we drove by the butcher's when they were unloading the pig carcasses Mum told me not to look because I'd get upset (I was completely soppy about animals as a child - still am) and she wouldn't let us go down the track to where the abatoire was so we didn't hear the noises and get upset.

It took a LONG time but I went vegan last year and I feel a lot better.

There tends to be a high turnover at slaughterhouse jobs.

I have some relatives who have a farm and also work in a slaughterhouse - they are actually quite big into animal rights and humane treatment of agricultural animals. Which is really the ideal for that sort of work.

While many people seem to feel that they couldn't kill animals, I'd point out that history suggests pretty much anyone would - vegan societies don't exist and vegetarian ones are really only for the elite and notably not the farmers. I think part of the reason modern westerners are so uncomfortable with death of animals is that they are unused to dealing with death all round. When you point out that being killed is always traumatic that is true of course, but that applies to every death in nature as well, in fact most wild animals do not live to be old and if they do they succumb to disease or starvation or the elements. If we want animals not to have to go through the trauma of death the only way to prevent that is not have animals.

'I think part of the reason modern westerners are so uncomfortable with death of animals is that they are unused to dealing with death all round'

With respect, that is nonsense. It is the fact for example, we have petting farms where people queue to feed the cute lambs yet within months they are being crammed into transport and taken to be slaughtered. It is the way people love their cats and dogs and are horrified at other countries who eat them, yet don't give a toss about animals in this country factory farmed and living distressing horrible lives, to then have a distressing horrible death.

I'm quite happy for animals to die of natural causes, just not after panicking in a queue after hours in transport then being shot with a bolt gun.

Utter bollocks. If we KNOW they've committed the crime - as they often tell us - then we have to tell them to plead guilty or we cannot represent them. We have a duty not to mislead the court so can only put forward defences, not something we know to be false.

Really? So murderers, rapists, child abusers are only guilty of they admit it to you? What happens when they are advised to plead guilty? Usually they get a lesser sentence so, even if they don't go completely free, you have still helped them get of lighter.

Are you telling me if your client doesn't admit to you they are guilty, then you 100% believe they are innocent?

FYI, I don't have a problem with lawyers at all, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of this thread. If you are going to judge people negatively for Jilly animals for meat, in a job they probably only took because they had to, then judge all jobs with a side that could be classed as immoral. Lawyers could be classed as worse, because no one is forced to become a lawyer to put food on the table, that takes years of determination and hard work to just qualify.

My husband sometimes works in a slaughter house (but has been shielding for months and still has 6 weeks to go). He is an engineer working on the machinery. There is nothing for you to feel bad about.

He doesn't need your sympathy or contempt.

People will however think bad of you for having this ridiculous view.

What I don’t agree with is your view that this makes law an immoral profession.

That's not my view, I'm just giving an example of another job that has an immoral side, yet to don't see anyone calling them Psychos.

I knew a man who did this in his early twenties.
Had his mortgage paid by the time he was thirty and now has a lovely pt job doing what he enjoys.
It's exceptionally well paid, if you can manage the work.
Not sure I could do it, but for him it was a means to an end.

That's why I'm vegan. I could never add to the problem.

Also deforestation is meat based now.

However. I would never judge a person due to their job. People earn money. The way they do it as nothing to do with me.

I agree, but maybe it's not as bad as the person is obviously guilty if you know what I mean.

Ok, you can't be serious with that one!

Really? So murderers, rapists, child abusers are only guilty of they admit it to you? What happens when they are advised to plead guilty? Usually they get a lesser sentence so, even if they don't go completely free, you have still helped them get of lighter.

You’re spectacularly missing the point. Unless your client has admitted their guilt to their lawyer, the lawyer has to treat them as though they’re innocent. The lawyer’s gut feeling about whether their client is guilt or innocent is completely irrelevant, because they don’t have the right to determine that - that is what a trial is for. The entire criminal justice system would break down if lawyers started taking it upon themselves to determine who is guilty and who is innocent.

People are advised to plead guilty when the evidence against them is compelling. The reasons that sometimes leads to a lighter sentence are many; pleading guilty saves the expense and time of a trial, it saves the victims of crime from having to go through a process which can often be traumatic, it can be indicative of remorse. Our criminal justice system recognises that it is in the public interest to incentivise people to admit their guilt, and so offers lesser sentences to those who do. That isn’t anything to do with defence lawyers; they don’t make those decisions.

Are you telling me if your client doesn't admit to you they are guilty, then you 100% believe they are innocent?

Lawyers have to behave as though they are. It’s the duty they owe to the court and to their client. They are obliged by their profession and the principles of justice to provide the best defence they can to their clients. As I said before - if you were accused of a crime you didn’t commit, you would be very grateful that your lawyer didn’t follow their gut instinct, decide you were guilty, and do a deliberately poor job of defending you as a result. You would want your legal adviser to be providing the most robust and forthright defence available, regardless of the impression they had formed of your innocence and guilt. You truly can’t expect defence lawyers to hold responsibility for pre-determining the guilt of their clients.

You also need to be aware that because of the ‘cab rank’ rule, barristers don’t get to decide who they represent as clients. They are obliged to take on any case presented to them in an area in which they have sufficient knowledge and experience to act, regardless of the identity of the client, the nature of the case, the client’s funding arrangements, or your view on the innocent or guilt of your client. So before you call a defence barrister immoral for defending a child rapist or a murderer, bear in mind that they don’t have the option of turning the instruction down because they believe the client to be guilty, or are disgusted by the alleged crime.

You can read more about it here: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cab-rank_rule

then judge all jobs with a side that could be classed as immoral.

If you genuinely believe criminal defence work is immoral, what’s your alternative? What would you consider to be a moral way of prosecuting crimes and determining guilt or innocence if you think there is something fundamentally immoral about defending a person accused of a crime?

I'm sure being a lawyer is hard emotionally too but thats a different story. I'm taking about the physical killing of a being and how awful it must be to have to do that for a living so I'm not really sure what you're getting at?

You're not sure what I'm getting at? Really?

@SadSisters

Your responses in this thread are extremely sensible, logical and measured. Kudos for staying so polite in the face of such absolute nonsense.

You’re spectacularly missing the point. Unless your client has admitted their guilt to their lawyer, the lawyer has to treat them as though they’re innocent.

No, you are spectacularly missing my point. A lawyer may have to treat them as though they are innocent, but there's a good chance they know full well they are guilty.