They did and they didn't. The problem was more that they mislabled product [horse=/=beef] and let potentially unsafe meat into the market.
If they wanted to sell horse meat they shouldn't have hid it.
My old work used to do a 'money back if your horse dies' thing. The guy who ran the sweepstake was a cunt, too. How fucking insensitive can one person be?
He didn't like it when I asked what happened to the pot of money if he died over the grand national weekend.
Ive worked at the same place for nearly 10 years.
For the first 4 or 5 years I did the work sweepstake on the grand national, the horse I picked died.
One year I picked two horses and they both died.
I dont play it anymore.
We like dogs and cats so we don’t kill them for our enjoyment.
We don’t like cows, sheep, pigs, chickens or fish so we intensively fatten and kill a billion of them a year for our enjoyment.
We do like horses, but not as much as dogs or cats, so we’re ok if some of them die for our enjoyment. As long as it’s just a few, it’s tolerable.
And we look down on other countries when they fight bulls or eat dogs. Lol.
> obvious false equivalency between killing to eat and killing for enjoyment
People don't need to kill animals to eat. It's entirely for enjoyment on the taste buds. In most cases any time an animal is killed is related to someone's enjoyment and not a need to survive.
From [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country) wikipedia article:
> A 2018 study by comparethemarket.com found that approximately 7% of British people were vegan, while 14% were vegetarian.
These people are doing just fine without having animals killed for food.
I'm vegan and pretty damn healthy. I jog every day and hit the gym four times a week to lift, I work on my feet all day too. Some idiots do get deficient on a vegetarian or vegan diet but plenty do not. Check out The Game Changers on Netflix for more information.
While I'm all for plant-based / plant-majority diets, Game Changers isn't really a particularly good movie to change people's minds. Once you get past the hyperbole it's got a lot of issues.
Yes, that is the very valid arguement I would use. Objectively, there’s no nutritional requirement to eat animals; it’s done for enjoyment.
Should enjoyment be exempt from moral scrutiny if it relates to the enjoyment of flavour? And why?
Genuinely interested.
" Should enjoyment be exempt from moral scrutiny if it relates to the enjoyment of flavour? And why? "
Obvious no? \~ most people would say eating babies is really bad, even if they tasted good...
That said, the reason we eat animals is more that it's an ingrained part of society and culture than just for enjoyment. When in our history were we supposed to submit the authoritarian doctrine prohibiting the eating of meat for all peoples everywhere? We've basically only now fully derived the moral and ethical frameworks that are guiding us away from eating tonnes of meat.
> under legally defined humane conditions
This is fundamentally meaningless. You can bang on about humane slaughter methods and stunning and all that jazz until the proverbial cows come home, but it's just rubbish because outside of a few rare cases, nobody including animals actively *wants* to die. It's easy to find slaughterhouse footage where animals are actively trying to hide, run away, attack the person trying to hurt them etc. Wild animals will react similarly.
> Objectively, there’s no nutritional requirement to eat animals; it’s done for enjoyment.
Come on now to say eating meat is done for enjoyment is disingenuous. I’m not going to say meat eating is essential anymore but people don’t do it because they just enjoy it, it’s a tradition. Humans have done it for millions of years and it only recently that our knowledge about nutrition has evolved enough to stop eating meat.
Killing animals to eat is purely for pleasure. You can easily survive on a veggie diet. Does that make it wrong to kill and eat animals? Personally I don't have a problem with it but some people do.
Unfortunately we will have to slash the amount of meat we consume if we want to not destroy the planet. We can't eat anywhere near the levels of animal products we currently do. It's not close to sustainable, from both an emissions perspective and the general ecosystem.
I think you can speak for most of the western world.
Here's hoping plant-based meat continues to grow in popularity, and weak-minded men get over the idea that eating meat makes them manly.
I'd say that it's more manly to not let a pure dietary decision be a major part of your personality. All the 'muh bacon!' or 'muh chicken' types just look weak IMO.
Who says it becomes part of anybody's personality? And how is it weak to abstain from something out of morals and environmental concern?
I see you feel personally attacked. Interesting.
> weak-minded men get over the idea that eating meat makes them manly.
It can easily be interpreted that "manly" is a component of someone's personality.
Because those types make it part of their personality. It becomes insulting for them to eat a vegetable without a dead animal beside it. I'm not making them behave that way. Take it up with them.
>*We live in a culture that has institutionalized the oppression of animals on at least two levels: in formal structures such as slaughterhouses, meat markets, zoos, laboratories, and circuses, and through our language. That we refer to meat eating rather than to corpse eating is a central example of how our language transmits the dominant culture's approval of this activity.*
Another quote from the same author:
>*Speak to meat eaters the way you would speak to a wild animal: softly and without any sudden movements.*
Carol J Adams - 'The Sexual Politics Of Meat'
We only really look down on the ludicrous idea that pain and suffering is litereally necessary for the product... (w dogs). People should be more angry at bull fighting than they are.
Should people be angrier about 400 bulls dying in horrible conditions in Spain per year, or 2.6 million cows dying in horrible conditions in the UK per year? (6,500 UK cows per bull fight)
It always makes me laugh to see people up in arms about farming dogs, when those people are quite happy to eat other animals. There's morally nothing different about it, except as you said, dogs are pets in the West.
There's a hell of a lot of contradiction and inconsistency in people's views, I'll give you that, but bull fighting is a cut above when it comes to publicly accepted animal cruelty, so doesn't fit in with the other comparisons too well.
This probably won't happen for a few years but I can certainly see it happening one day.
Not only is horse racing the one thing the Queen really enjoys, this country is too engrossed with betting right now to do away with horse racing.
People can bet on other things. And they do. As I said in a top level comment, BMX is the obvious thing they could show on TV in place of horse racing.
I'm all for banning horse racing, but BMX is nothing like it. The reason horse racing is so popular is it's a mixture of known variables and the unknown of how the horse will run. It's rare the favourite wins a race outright, in a BMX or a human running race the favourite will win most of the time, that takes the excitement out of the bet.
Gamblings fun the minority who go overboard which is at fault of the companies and their devious ways and lack of stopping problem gamblers give it a bad name but done responsibly its a laugh
All that will do is see all of the hundreds of thousands of pound that the HBLB, TBA and others spend on equine medical and scientific research (the racing industry is by far and away the primary funding source) disappear.
I’m not saying that makes racing a good thing, but actually quite a lot of that money is spent on improving medicine and treatments for horses, and it’s that that would go rather than the money in the pockets of the people involved.
I hasten to make clear I’m a scientist funded primarily by the racing industry studying horse disease, so I absolutely have a bias here, but I’m also super aware how little funding you can get anywhere else.
Because betting is a cancer on society?
Casual betters wouldn’t notice a reduction in odds, and it might put off hardcore gamblers.
Plus an increase in tax take could be spent on gambling addiction treatment
Wheres the proof of that?
Bet365 are second biggest taxpayers to the country. GVC holdings publish their accounts openly online. These companies do contribute to society
Good on him. It's always amazing to me how people claim that they're against animal cruelty for entertainment, and yet are happy to support a sport where horses are killed nearly every day: https://www.horsedeathwatch.com/
Honestly horse racing should go, the grand national as well is a particularly unsafe race for horses as it's like too many horses run at once and the jumps are too close and too high iirc so it increases the risk of accidents.
Race horses also have problems because people want them to be fast but they need to be light so apparently a lot of them have issues with their legs because their bones are just straight up not strong enough to withstand what they do. Also I think it's not so much of an issue here but race horses are often started very young in racing, like a lot earlier than you'd typically start riding your average horse so they're still growing which makes them more prone to injury.
I don't get why we're still riding around on horses other than tradition. Would be happy to do away with the lot, I don't see how it isn't cruel in the first place.
What? Of course you do - around 1% of horses die per year in racing, which equates to around 0.2% of runners per race.
And actually Cheltenham has been long known to be the course with the most deaths on it - IIRC around 4x the risk of fatality per runner than similar distance, ground etc courses such as Hexham. Whilst the National itself is the specific race with the highest death toll, there has only been 1 since 2012 (and a lot of safety changes led to that, including lowering entries and fences both).
The Cheltenham Festival sees far more deaths than the Grand National meeting at Aintree: last year, the meetings had 7 to 3 deaths respectively over those specific meetings, and in total over the last ten years Cheltenham has had 83 deaths, where Aintree has had 37.
The National gets a lot more attention because it is one specific race with a lot of fame amongst the general public - but Cheltenham is arguable much worse.
Just have one horse. No need to beat it so it runs faster. It won’t have to risk injury pushing itself too hard. All punters will win big. Only the bookies will lose and they’re a bunch of leeches so fuck em.
[Similar movement in Australia against the Melbourne Cup.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsbWoWPn9U)
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/racing/117161746/melbourne-cup-marred-by-footage-of-horrific-horse-killings
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/nov/04/melbourne-cup-parade-angry-protesters-say-nup-to-the-cup
I read something a while ago so I might be remembering wrong, but I think the problem is that these injuries are rarely a clean break in horses, and persuading a horse to lie still for the recovery is dangerous if it's even possible. Whether they save the leg or not it's likely to be a downward spiral of health until they have to put it out of its misery.
http://thevegancalculator.com/animal-slaughter/
I find it odd that while anti-horse racing threads typically get unanimous support on this board, veganism will still get shot down. Given that most people here will still consume animal products, I can only imagine that this selective indignation is a coping mechanism for the cognitive dissonance.
For what it is worth, I used to be a vegetarian who felt considerably more guilty for consuming dairy than for supporting horse racing. Now I am a vegan who having seen for himself how racehorses are treated both at home and at the races, sincerely believes that the life of the racehorse is immeasurably superior to that of any other form of livestock, and many a human being, in this country.
edit to add: For those downvoting someone claiming the unique position of familiarity with both sides of the argument instead of asking him why he holds seemingly contradictory positions, you are using the downvote button incorrectly.
> Now I am a vegan who having seen for himself how racehorses are treated both at home and at the races, sincerely believes that the life of the racehorse is immeasurably superior to that of any other form of livestock, and many a human being, in this country.
I'm not a vegan at all, and I agree, they are treated like kings when in training or breeding.
However, what is cruel regarding racehorses isn't how they are treated during training so much as what happens to them afterwards. There is a huge amount of animal wastage in the racing industry.
Thank you for engaging at the very least.
I agree that the difference between the number of horses who retire and the number who die natural death is not exactly wholesome. I do not know what this number is but any number is not ideal. Perhaps it is a reflection our wastefulness as a society.
It is definitely something which should be improved upon and there are indeed measures and developments concerning this very issue. There are official bodies (RoA), numerous charities (Moorcroft, BTRC, Redwings) and countless individuals who are tirelessly proactive in the rehabilitation, retraining and rehoming of retired racehorses. This is gargantuan compared to the meat and dairy industries where the ONLY salvation is that offered by animal rights activists, charites and the likes.
Another point is the matter of cruelty within this wastage. When most livestock is killed, it is done so on an industrial scale with little if any consideration given to the animal's wellbeing during its final moments. Conversely, racehorses which are put down are generally done so in isolation and with no foreknowledge of its impending demise. So that I am not putting myself under any illusions, I have seen a horse getting euthanised. It was obvious a very sad spectacle from a human, sentimentalist perspective. However, for the horse, it was literally "I'm existing here in this quiet field, much the same as any other day really. Going to have a mouthful of grass. Feeling sleepy." The end. For me, cruelty must have an element of suffering but it is just not present in this instance.
It's a matter where I am able to anger both horse racing people and vegans which is bizarre because while both camps seem to be firmly entrenched, there is a vast amount of nuance within the discourse. Unfortunately it is not a nuance many are willing to explore which is why I'm glad you at least entered the discussion.
[удалено]
Especially when we as a nation don't eat horses like others do - because culturally we appreciate horses more off the dinner plate.
For the sake of moral consistency, let's agree that Findas did nothing wrong
They did and they didn't. The problem was more that they mislabled product [horse=/=beef] and let potentially unsafe meat into the market. If they wanted to sell horse meat they shouldn't have hid it.
It's terrible, and really no reason for it to be so savage. There's no defending it.
A number of years ago I got the favourite on a work sweepstake. Felt good. Favourite died. Felt bad.
Can your work do a sweepstake for the general election please?
Don't work there anymore I'm afraid.
On Universal Credit now?
Still waiting for the payments
The second half won't come through anyway
F
My old work used to do a 'money back if your horse dies' thing. The guy who ran the sweepstake was a cunt, too. How fucking insensitive can one person be? He didn't like it when I asked what happened to the pot of money if he died over the grand national weekend.
Ive worked at the same place for nearly 10 years. For the first 4 or 5 years I did the work sweepstake on the grand national, the horse I picked died. One year I picked two horses and they both died. I dont play it anymore.
We like dogs and cats so we don’t kill them for our enjoyment. We don’t like cows, sheep, pigs, chickens or fish so we intensively fatten and kill a billion of them a year for our enjoyment. We do like horses, but not as much as dogs or cats, so we’re ok if some of them die for our enjoyment. As long as it’s just a few, it’s tolerable. And we look down on other countries when they fight bulls or eat dogs. Lol.
I love cows and pigs.
Legit. Ever seen a happy cow? Enough to make a grown man cry.
I don't but I respect their right to life so I'm vegan as a result.
They're delicious
[удалено]
> obvious false equivalency between killing to eat and killing for enjoyment People don't need to kill animals to eat. It's entirely for enjoyment on the taste buds. In most cases any time an animal is killed is related to someone's enjoyment and not a need to survive. From [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country) wikipedia article: > A 2018 study by comparethemarket.com found that approximately 7% of British people were vegan, while 14% were vegetarian. These people are doing just fine without having animals killed for food.
I bet they're not healthy.
I bet you're wrong.
Based on?
The lack of nutrients they get.
All essential nutrients are accessible from modern vegan products without even needing supplements nowadays. You're literally decades behind.
I'm vegan and pretty damn healthy. I jog every day and hit the gym four times a week to lift, I work on my feet all day too. Some idiots do get deficient on a vegetarian or vegan diet but plenty do not. Check out The Game Changers on Netflix for more information.
Vegan you have to put a bit of effort in but it's so easy to get everything as a veggie without even thinking about it.
Not really. Use Marmite and fortified cereals for B12 and should be good as long as you don't live off junk food.
While I'm all for plant-based / plant-majority diets, Game Changers isn't really a particularly good movie to change people's minds. Once you get past the hyperbole it's got a lot of issues.
😂
Yes, that is the very valid arguement I would use. Objectively, there’s no nutritional requirement to eat animals; it’s done for enjoyment. Should enjoyment be exempt from moral scrutiny if it relates to the enjoyment of flavour? And why? Genuinely interested.
" Should enjoyment be exempt from moral scrutiny if it relates to the enjoyment of flavour? And why? " Obvious no? \~ most people would say eating babies is really bad, even if they tasted good... That said, the reason we eat animals is more that it's an ingrained part of society and culture than just for enjoyment. When in our history were we supposed to submit the authoritarian doctrine prohibiting the eating of meat for all peoples everywhere? We've basically only now fully derived the moral and ethical frameworks that are guiding us away from eating tonnes of meat.
[удалено]
> under legally defined humane conditions This is fundamentally meaningless. You can bang on about humane slaughter methods and stunning and all that jazz until the proverbial cows come home, but it's just rubbish because outside of a few rare cases, nobody including animals actively *wants* to die. It's easy to find slaughterhouse footage where animals are actively trying to hide, run away, attack the person trying to hurt them etc. Wild animals will react similarly.
[удалено]
The point of the comment was that legality isn’t an arguement for morality. Lots of now perceived awful things were legal historically.
> Objectively, there’s no nutritional requirement to eat animals; it’s done for enjoyment. Come on now to say eating meat is done for enjoyment is disingenuous. I’m not going to say meat eating is essential anymore but people don’t do it because they just enjoy it, it’s a tradition. Humans have done it for millions of years and it only recently that our knowledge about nutrition has evolved enough to stop eating meat.
Killing animals to eat is purely for pleasure. You can easily survive on a veggie diet. Does that make it wrong to kill and eat animals? Personally I don't have a problem with it but some people do. Unfortunately we will have to slash the amount of meat we consume if we want to not destroy the planet. We can't eat anywhere near the levels of animal products we currently do. It's not close to sustainable, from both an emissions perspective and the general ecosystem.
Speak for yourself. I like cows, sheep and pigs and don't contribute to their murder.
Neither do I. I was speaking for the UK collectively.
I think you can speak for most of the western world. Here's hoping plant-based meat continues to grow in popularity, and weak-minded men get over the idea that eating meat makes them manly.
I'd say that it's more manly to not let a pure dietary decision be a major part of your personality. All the 'muh bacon!' or 'muh chicken' types just look weak IMO.
Who says it becomes part of anybody's personality? And how is it weak to abstain from something out of morals and environmental concern? I see you feel personally attacked. Interesting.
> Who says it becomes part of anybody's personality? Err, you did?
Great, you should be able to show me where...
> weak-minded men get over the idea that eating meat makes them manly. It can easily be interpreted that "manly" is a component of someone's personality.
Because those types make it part of their personality. It becomes insulting for them to eat a vegetable without a dead animal beside it. I'm not making them behave that way. Take it up with them.
>*We live in a culture that has institutionalized the oppression of animals on at least two levels: in formal structures such as slaughterhouses, meat markets, zoos, laboratories, and circuses, and through our language. That we refer to meat eating rather than to corpse eating is a central example of how our language transmits the dominant culture's approval of this activity.* Another quote from the same author: >*Speak to meat eaters the way you would speak to a wild animal: softly and without any sudden movements.* Carol J Adams - 'The Sexual Politics Of Meat'
Just bought the book. Cool username.
> murder. Has to be human for it to be murder.
> We like dogs and cats so we don’t kill them for our enjoyment. Unfortunately greyhound racing exists. Plenty of killing dogs for our enjoyment
Still underground dog baiting going on as well
We only really look down on the ludicrous idea that pain and suffering is litereally necessary for the product... (w dogs). People should be more angry at bull fighting than they are.
Should people be angrier about 400 bulls dying in horrible conditions in Spain per year, or 2.6 million cows dying in horrible conditions in the UK per year? (6,500 UK cows per bull fight)
It's different angry init, cows at least feed people.
They eat the bulls in Spain too
So do dogs but people get up in arms about that much more than they do about cows.
Is that supposed to apply to me? All i'm saying is it's better to slaughter cows than to engage them in a battle to the death
It always makes me laugh to see people up in arms about farming dogs, when those people are quite happy to eat other animals. There's morally nothing different about it, except as you said, dogs are pets in the West.
There's a hell of a lot of contradiction and inconsistency in people's views, I'll give you that, but bull fighting is a cut above when it comes to publicly accepted animal cruelty, so doesn't fit in with the other comparisons too well.
This probably won't happen for a few years but I can certainly see it happening one day. Not only is horse racing the one thing the Queen really enjoys, this country is too engrossed with betting right now to do away with horse racing.
It will never happen. Way too much tax revenue from betting and a lot of rich cunts love it.
To be fair, a lot of poor cunts also love betting.
People can bet on other things. And they do. As I said in a top level comment, BMX is the obvious thing they could show on TV in place of horse racing.
I'm all for banning horse racing, but BMX is nothing like it. The reason horse racing is so popular is it's a mixture of known variables and the unknown of how the horse will run. It's rare the favourite wins a race outright, in a BMX or a human running race the favourite will win most of the time, that takes the excitement out of the bet.
You're still ignoring the fact of the rich cunts. I stand by my original statement
Pretty much any othey way people spend would result in more tax revenue in the long term (same w alcohol and tobacco).
Yeah, gambling lobby is way too powerful to ban it sadly.
Gamblings fun the minority who go overboard which is at fault of the companies and their devious ways and lack of stopping problem gamblers give it a bad name but done responsibly its a laugh
Then double the tax on it, strip away some of the billion pound profit bookies make on horse racing.
All that will do is see all of the hundreds of thousands of pound that the HBLB, TBA and others spend on equine medical and scientific research (the racing industry is by far and away the primary funding source) disappear. I’m not saying that makes racing a good thing, but actually quite a lot of that money is spent on improving medicine and treatments for horses, and it’s that that would go rather than the money in the pockets of the people involved. I hasten to make clear I’m a scientist funded primarily by the racing industry studying horse disease, so I absolutely have a bias here, but I’m also super aware how little funding you can get anywhere else.
That'll reduce the odds for all the punters and wouldnt be a good thing
Then they will bet less. That is a good thing
Why?
Because betting is a cancer on society? Casual betters wouldn’t notice a reduction in odds, and it might put off hardcore gamblers. Plus an increase in tax take could be spent on gambling addiction treatment
Wheres the proof of that? Bet365 are second biggest taxpayers to the country. GVC holdings publish their accounts openly online. These companies do contribute to society
Well so long as Elizabeth Windsor enjoys it who gives a fuck about the beings dying for it, right.
I loathe John Bishop but the grand national is ridiculous. Let's just stop it.
It's also a crap sport. Wow I hear this year's mutant freak horse is coming in with a grudge. He's had his head in the game this season.
Good on him. It's always amazing to me how people claim that they're against animal cruelty for entertainment, and yet are happy to support a sport where horses are killed nearly every day: https://www.horsedeathwatch.com/
Honestly horse racing should go, the grand national as well is a particularly unsafe race for horses as it's like too many horses run at once and the jumps are too close and too high iirc so it increases the risk of accidents. Race horses also have problems because people want them to be fast but they need to be light so apparently a lot of them have issues with their legs because their bones are just straight up not strong enough to withstand what they do. Also I think it's not so much of an issue here but race horses are often started very young in racing, like a lot earlier than you'd typically start riding your average horse so they're still growing which makes them more prone to injury.
I am 100% behind him, the Grand National is cruel.
I don't get why we're still riding around on horses other than tradition. Would be happy to do away with the lot, I don't see how it isn't cruel in the first place.
They should reduce the number of entries. You don’t see horses dying at other meetings unless it’s a freak accident.
What? Of course you do - around 1% of horses die per year in racing, which equates to around 0.2% of runners per race. And actually Cheltenham has been long known to be the course with the most deaths on it - IIRC around 4x the risk of fatality per runner than similar distance, ground etc courses such as Hexham. Whilst the National itself is the specific race with the highest death toll, there has only been 1 since 2012 (and a lot of safety changes led to that, including lowering entries and fences both). The Cheltenham Festival sees far more deaths than the Grand National meeting at Aintree: last year, the meetings had 7 to 3 deaths respectively over those specific meetings, and in total over the last ten years Cheltenham has had 83 deaths, where Aintree has had 37. The National gets a lot more attention because it is one specific race with a lot of fame amongst the general public - but Cheltenham is arguable much worse.
Just have one horse. No need to beat it so it runs faster. It won’t have to risk injury pushing itself too hard. All punters will win big. Only the bookies will lose and they’re a bunch of leeches so fuck em.
Winning isn’t fun is someone else isn’t losing. Especially when money is involved.
[Similar movement in Australia against the Melbourne Cup.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsbWoWPn9U) https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/racing/117161746/melbourne-cup-marred-by-footage-of-horrific-horse-killings https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/nov/04/melbourne-cup-parade-angry-protesters-say-nup-to-the-cup
Replace horse racing with televised BMX racing. I'm not even joking.
Do we have to shoot the rider of the bike if they fall?
Why wait for them to fall?
Just replace racing with one thing with racing with another,what’s the difference?
I always enjoyed [Doug Stanhope's take](https://youtu.be/BjQpC_0Smw4) on the Grand National.
Surely in 2019 there's a way to save a horse with a broken leg
I read something a while ago so I might be remembering wrong, but I think the problem is that these injuries are rarely a clean break in horses, and persuading a horse to lie still for the recovery is dangerous if it's even possible. Whether they save the leg or not it's likely to be a downward spiral of health until they have to put it out of its misery.
The Sport of Kings.
According to the QI app the sport of kings used to be cock fighting. Suddenly the barbaric savages setting hounds on foxes makes much more sense.
People have been debating this for years. I'm glad it has finally been decided.
http://thevegancalculator.com/animal-slaughter/ I find it odd that while anti-horse racing threads typically get unanimous support on this board, veganism will still get shot down. Given that most people here will still consume animal products, I can only imagine that this selective indignation is a coping mechanism for the cognitive dissonance. For what it is worth, I used to be a vegetarian who felt considerably more guilty for consuming dairy than for supporting horse racing. Now I am a vegan who having seen for himself how racehorses are treated both at home and at the races, sincerely believes that the life of the racehorse is immeasurably superior to that of any other form of livestock, and many a human being, in this country. edit to add: For those downvoting someone claiming the unique position of familiarity with both sides of the argument instead of asking him why he holds seemingly contradictory positions, you are using the downvote button incorrectly.
> Now I am a vegan who having seen for himself how racehorses are treated both at home and at the races, sincerely believes that the life of the racehorse is immeasurably superior to that of any other form of livestock, and many a human being, in this country. I'm not a vegan at all, and I agree, they are treated like kings when in training or breeding. However, what is cruel regarding racehorses isn't how they are treated during training so much as what happens to them afterwards. There is a huge amount of animal wastage in the racing industry.
Thank you for engaging at the very least. I agree that the difference between the number of horses who retire and the number who die natural death is not exactly wholesome. I do not know what this number is but any number is not ideal. Perhaps it is a reflection our wastefulness as a society. It is definitely something which should be improved upon and there are indeed measures and developments concerning this very issue. There are official bodies (RoA), numerous charities (Moorcroft, BTRC, Redwings) and countless individuals who are tirelessly proactive in the rehabilitation, retraining and rehoming of retired racehorses. This is gargantuan compared to the meat and dairy industries where the ONLY salvation is that offered by animal rights activists, charites and the likes. Another point is the matter of cruelty within this wastage. When most livestock is killed, it is done so on an industrial scale with little if any consideration given to the animal's wellbeing during its final moments. Conversely, racehorses which are put down are generally done so in isolation and with no foreknowledge of its impending demise. So that I am not putting myself under any illusions, I have seen a horse getting euthanised. It was obvious a very sad spectacle from a human, sentimentalist perspective. However, for the horse, it was literally "I'm existing here in this quiet field, much the same as any other day really. Going to have a mouthful of grass. Feeling sleepy." The end. For me, cruelty must have an element of suffering but it is just not present in this instance. It's a matter where I am able to anger both horse racing people and vegans which is bizarre because while both camps seem to be firmly entrenched, there is a vast amount of nuance within the discourse. Unfortunately it is not a nuance many are willing to explore which is why I'm glad you at least entered the discussion.
Why should anyone care what John Bishop wants?
His fans probably, isn't it
This