This Pen Farthing guy

[TheGenealogist]

The bloke with the animal shelter in Kabul.

Refusing to leave unless he can take ALL of his 60 odd staff and ALL of his 200+ cats and dogs with him. Expecting the government to make special rules for him and his friends.

Getting people out - understandable. The Taliban aren't going to look kindly on people who have translated for the military, or "collaborated" in other ways. But staff at an animal shelter?

And as for the refusing to leave without the animals and making this all out to be the UK government's fault? For not falling over themselves to arrange transport for a bunch of ownerless animals nobody wants when there are human beings in fear of their lives?

What is this guy playing at?

No one is saying that this chap's staff shouldn't be brought out. But yesterday morning (Sky news) we were told that there was never any question that they wouldn't be.

They could have already been on planes and out. But Farthing's insistence on bringing out the pets is what the fuss is about. Of course his staff deserve to be rescued but the animals? Not when there are people needing help more.

[quote notimagain]@RedToothBrush

Given that animals can survive in the hold safely, I would suggest, that if we are into the desparate straits that very much appear to be the case here, that it would be perfectly possible to fill up the hold with humans.

It would be against pretty much every IATA/ICAO/etc rule under the sun and depending on circumstances it might be a bit chilly but traveling in the hold of most modern passenger aircraft would be survivable…[/quote]
I think the point is it would be survivable.

And the flight with more than 800 people took off even though I'm fairly sure it properly would have broken all those rules too.

How and why did they manage it once?

And its its possible once, why isn't possible in a situation where people are literally dying to get out?

@RedToothBrush

For those people making the comments about animals going in the hold and how humans can't go there, might want to reflect on the US Military plane designed to carry only just over a hundred people, carried over 800 (the original figure was 640 but they later said this didn't include children) because it was able to carry that amount of weight when it wasn't also loaded up with cargo.

Given that animals can survive in the hold safely, I would suggest, that if we are into the desparate straits that very much appear to be the case here, that it would be perfectly possible to fill up the hold with humans. Indeed, I suspect there are humans in Afghanistan right now who would happily sit in an animal cage for the duration of the flight if it meant they could get out.

The idea that 'people can't go in the hold but animals can' is so fucking laughable in terms of the disconnect between Western Reality and the Reality of the Situation in Afghanistan, that I don't know where to begin.

If your life is in that much danger, standard health and safety becomes something that isn't a thought.

I'm not quite sure there was much thought given to it at Dunkirk. Or by the Boat People escaping Vietnam.

Honestly people prattling about being hard of thinking, really need to fucking engage their braincells.

What you say is true. Yet, there is another angle, which is that in the 21st century news travels fast and all nearly 8 billion of us can see it instantly and become influenced by it.

The US has already been humiliated through the actions of Biden enough. The future will want to present a successful 20 year occupation to kill terrorists, to restore the rights of ordinary people, an orderly evacuation, and seeds sown to enable the Afghan people to take charge of their own destiny. The failure to do so will be placed at the feet of ordinary Afghans. Pictures of animals and people crammed into cargo holds in the final few hours will tarnish that image, just like an 8 year old girl being burned by napalm, or people falling off the landing rails of helicopters, as the end of the Vietnam war.

The airlifts into and out of Afghanistan over the last few days have been substantial and round the clock. There have been around 6 Stratotankers and Extenders in the air at any one time. The availability of aircraft is not the issue. It just comes down to politics.

What the Americans did at Bagram was despicable. They've created a situation where people have to flee the country, there isn't enough time or capacity, and now people are reduced to scrapping over who is more worthy of a seat on a plane. Animals aside, it's degrading to see humans being evaluated like this. (And horribly reminiscent of other situations.)

I would rather take my chances in the hold rather than with the taleban.

Bottom line is that plenty of people do value animals over people. They see them as innocents. Which is fair but aren't human babies and children not innocents?

It's a fairly common attitude.

What will happen to the babies and children of those the taleban execute. Any children where there is no male relative/ the father is dead or executed and no other men related nearby. Especially the older girls.

I think a cat definitely has a better chance surely.

But it's an emotional response and that's that. So there's never going to be a middle ground.

He also mentioned getting the dogs out, but said he would take them to the airport and leave them to starve at the last minute if absolutely necessary in order to get the people away.

Why put the dogs through the upheaval and uncertainty of the journey at all? And the possibility of them being left to starve to death
I love my dogs but if I was in Farthing's position they'd have been euthanized by now.

Both dogs and cats stand a better chance at survival than human babies/ children.

The taleban do not have rules proscribing the behaviour dress etc of cats or dogs. And subject them to public flogging, hanging, etc if they step a toe out of line.

Like I say. It's not s meet in the middle topic.

I was under the impression that all the U.K. government had to do was provide the requisite permissions and the call sign to the flight.

And that's all Pen Farthing is asking of them.

Why put the dogs through the upheaval and uncertainty of the journey at all? And the possibility of them being left to starve to death

When did he say that? I though he’d said putting them to sleep at the airport as a last resort? Not leaving them to starve to death.

@DancesWithTortoises

No one is saying that this chap's staff shouldn't be brought out. But yesterday morning (Sky news) we were told that there was never any question that they wouldn't be.

They could have already been on planes and out. But Farthing's insistence on bringing out the pets is what the fuss is about. Of course his staff deserve to be rescued but the animals? Not when there are people needing help more.

This.

And calling it 'Operation Ark' as if it's all a film in the making. His tweets, his supporters like Dominic Dyer and Chris McGill have been egotistical nonsense. All this 'they picked a fight with the wrong person' and 'marines don't leave people behind' crap. Jesus, just shut up and get to the airport.

The taleban do not have rules proscribing the behaviour dress etc of cats or dogs. And subject them to public flogging, hanging, etc if they step a toe out of line.

No, but they ban dog ownership. And kill dogs in the most horrific ways.

@TeloMere

He also mentioned getting the dogs out, but said he would take them to the airport and leave them to starve at the last minute if absolutely necessary in order to get the people away.

Why put the dogs through the upheaval and uncertainty of the journey at all? And the possibility of them being left to starve to death
I love my dogs but if I was in Farthing's position they'd have been euthanized by now.

I have a rescue dog. I rescued her, but she also rescued me. Anyone working in rescue feels the same. You don't abandon them. Nowzad also did indeed euthanise/release elderly/sick/street dogs. They had to, to make sure the dogs with the best chance got a crate in the hold on the plane. There are tons of people lining up to rescue them when they land in the UK.

I would remind people of the British civil servants who very clearly bent and broke rules to issue visas to jews in the 1930s knowing that they were likely to face persecution or death if they didn't.

Now is the point where we should be throwing the kitchen sink at the problem, rather than worrying about fucking regulations.

They know what the weight limit on these aircraft is. So it can be done safely. Might not be sanitary or pleasant but these are people stood in the shit on the street by the airport trying to get out anyway.

Someone is making an active decision not to throw the kitchen sink at the problem in the full knowledge that means that people will die and they are hiding behind the rules.

Damn straight its politics and PR.

This guy knew how to play the PR game and someone has since made an active decision that its more important not to be seen to be killing the animals in the Daily Mail than to stuff planes full of people.

Brown people. Who will want houses in the UK. And benefits in the uk.

Animals are easier to rehome. Both in the sense of physically and in terms of political considerations.

No one seems to have the guts to say this thought.

Thats what embarasses me.

Compulsory purchase a shit load of AirBnBs at a cut price please.

Update says he will be coming home. And his animals.

@PrincessNutNuts

I was under the impression that all the U.K. government had to do was provide the requisite permissions and the call sign to the flight.

And that's all Pen Farthing is asking of them.

Look at the scenes at the airport.

Getting that number of people through the taleban. Is likely impossible. Let alone the animals. 80 people plus all the animals is a small convoy of vehicles.

Individuals are being turned back. Those who have made it to the airport are experiencing crushes and chaos. People are climbing on each other to try and hand their child off to anyone on the other side to try and get them out.

Oh the UK won't sign something is the least of the problems.

And yes of course they can fill the hold with people. People who will be executed/ beaten/ raped/ starve etc if they don't get out. Children. Fill it full of children.

But yes not going to have a middle ground on threads like this.

His staff are at risk. I thought that was who he wanted to get out. Fair enough. Laudable.

I didn't know he wanted to take all the rescue animals as well.

Absolutely agree with you OP.

Heather Butler
@Heath_cb
·
26m
Replying to
@jimwaterson
But saving the animals has no impact on the amount of people who can be saved as the animals go in the hold, the people cannot be seated in there. And people can fight for people, the animals can’t fight for themselves. I think this was the right decision to take.
Jim Waterson
@jimwaterson
·
21m
As I understand it - and admittedly my main beat these days is basically writing up random stuff blurted out by Channel 4 executives - the issue is not runway capacity, but diverting resources to get dogs and cats through Taliban checkpoints to the airport.

@NiceGerbil

But yes not going to have a middle ground on threads like this.

His staff are at risk. I thought that was who he wanted to get out. Fair enough. Laudable.

I didn't know he wanted to take all the rescue animals as well.

He had a lot put to sleep, and their donkeys are being left. Staff are at risk for sure... educated and working women. Taliban are not a fan of those. These highly trained women need to get out. No one who works in animal rescue would just give up and leave... he could have done that days ago. He didn't. And the fact he is not giving up on the animals in his care is seen as something negative on MN. Wish them luck... that is the only appropriate response as far as I am concerned.

@RedToothBrush

And the flight with more than 800 people took off even though I'm fairly sure it properly would have broken all those rules too.

That flight got stormed (uncontrolled boarding by some who had got through the wire) and I think a decision was made to “go” anyway….I don’t know where they ended up with regard to aircraft limiting weights (rather than limits on passenger numbers) but the consequences of breaching weight limits can be, putting it gently, can be terminal so I don’t think it is something the USAF would want to risk repeating every flight….risk vs. benefit, and the balance may change over the next few days, last few flights.

I think he's a hero with more empathy in his pinkie for both humans and animals than a lot of people I know. I donated to his cause and fervently hope he gets everyone, staff and animals, out safely.

@TheAstronaut

Why put the dogs through the upheaval and uncertainty of the journey at all? And the possibility of them being left to starve to death

When did he say that? I though he’d said putting them to sleep at the airport as a last resort? Not leaving them to starve to death.

There are people starving and dying of heat stroke outside Kabul airport who will be 'put to sleep' by the Taliban if they don't get out.

As previous poster above puts it well, this isn't a 'meet in the middle topic'.

Either you are doing everything you can to save lives and get people out, or you are not.

Biden wanted this to be more like Dunkirk than Saigon.

Its worse than Saigon. And will play out in the media worse because even after the journalists are evacuated in a day or two, there's social media and contact via mobile phones.

Until people stop responding of course.

@Goofers

Well, his plane has been given permission to land now…

Amen

[quote notimagain]@RedToothBrush

And the flight with more than 800 people took off even though I'm fairly sure it properly would have broken all those rules too.

That flight got stormed (uncontrolled boarding by some who had got through the wire) and I think a decision was made to “go” anyway….I don’t know where they ended up with regard to aircraft limiting weights (rather than limits on passenger numbers) but the consequences of breaching weight limits can be, putting it gently, can be terminal so I don’t think it is something the USAF would want to risk repeating every flight….risk vs. benefit, and the balance may change over the next few days, last few flights.[/quote]
They didn't breach the weight limit. They calculated the weight they were carrying. And confirmed they were within the weight limit.

Of course a solution to this would be for Taliban to have a less fucked up attitude to dog ownership. It's actually dangerous for people in some hardline Islamic states to have pet dogs.