Animal Rights Zone

Fighting for animal liberation and an end to speciesism

Cheale Meats employees to be prosecuted for animal cruelty
Posted 28 March 2012

Animal Aid is delighted to report that two former Cheale Meats employees will now face prosecution for animal cruelty. The CPS issued a statement today. It says:

Simon Clements, Head of the Welfare, Rural and Health Prosecutions Division at the Crown Prosecution Service said:

‘I have advised the Food Standards Agency that Piotr Andrzej Wasiuta and Kelly Smith should be prosecuted for animal cruelty offences following the alleged mistreatment of pigs at Orchard Farm, Little Warley, Brentwood, Essex in March and April of last year.

‘Piotr Andrzej Wasiuta faces three charges of causing unnecessary suffering to a pig by applying a lighted cigarette to its snout, contrary to sections 4(1) and 32(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

‘Kelly Smith faces four charges of causing unnecessary suffering to a pig. Two of the charges relate to failing to ensure that a lame pig was not humanely slaughtered immediately and two of the charges relate to striking a pig with a baton, all contrary to sections 4(1) and 32(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

‘This decision was taken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors. After careful consideration of all the evidence, I am satisfied there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and it is in the public interest to prosecute this case.

‘They now stand charged with criminal offences and they each have the right to a fair trial. It is extremely important that nothing should be reported which could prejudice this trial.’


Views: 297

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

If I were given a choice of being burnt with a lit cigarette, or being slaughtered and eaten, I expect I would choose the lit cigarette. This is considered unacceptable and "cruel", by an organisation who claim to act on behalf of other animals, yet the slaughter continues to be accepted. I don't know if I'm angry, depressed or just resigned to this as the best most people can offer.

Yes, having scapegoats actually helps validate the overall system.  It gives the appearance of regulation that makes use/exploitation an acceptable practice.

Roger Yates said:

All animal advocates know that these rights violations occur everywhere - and all the time- catching a few "bad apples" will not change the structural situation which is speciesist in its general nature and within which other animals are reduced to units, numbers, commodities, and products. When the abuse, exploitation, and rights violations are so normalised within a speciesist system of use, there will be millions of these incidents going on, not isolated examples.

No, but I think it's better for animal rights advocates not to offer praise voluntarily.  Those who are interested only in animal welfare will take care of situations like this.  For someone interested in animal rights, trumpeting this about as a victory makes it seem as if the situation has been corrected, and the animals will go back to being treated appropriately.  Which, of course, they're not.  That's my take on it.


Uptight Primate said:

Would it be better if they were not prosecuted then?



Uptight Primate said:

...
The idea seems to be that the more the animals suffer the better our chances of emotionally blackmailing the public into being vegan – I think this is naive and probably counter productive. How confident are you that this approach can work and how much more suffering will the animals endure along the way?
...

I'm not at all confident this approach will work, and I certainly don't espouse it.  In fact, I don't know anyone who does.  Speaking for myself, I don't oppose actual welfare reforms (not that many reforms actually make much difference, but there are some that do), but I don't think we should campaign for them, and I don't think we should give them a "stamp of approval."

Most critiques of the above campaign and its presentation I think would not suggest that “the more the animals suffer the better our chances of emotionally blackmailing the public into being vegan”. As far as the critiques I have come across most are likely to centre around the suggestion that such campaigns as this one are one or many of: 1 counter productive (or not productive) in eater or both the short and long term 2. inefficient use of resources for achieving long and/or short therm goals 3. ethically indefensible given there explicit or implicit suggestions i.e. that use is acceptable. 4. can not have any tangible effect given any combination of legal, cultural and material realities.

None of these critical arguments, at least in one form, requires trading off the suffering of those that are exploited to encourage people to change there behaviour.

Also I think this campaign is potentially problematic because of its focus on those individuals. Given the influence of cultural speciesism I am reluctant to hold those individuals up as wrongdoers, quite apart from my reluctance to do this for reasonsons of advancing animal rights. In my view the focus should be on the prejudice of speciesism not its embodiment in two particular individuals. Furthermore there
MAY (I don’t know anyone particular situation so am not making any accusations) be an issue of class privilege in that those accusing them have the benefits of class privilege (education, time to learn about about animal issues, come form a social situations with different and possibly less speciesitst values) while those that are accused do not and so are in some sense less accountable for there actions in this particuar situation or at least it is more excusable. Also just want to say im not making any broad assumption about the situation of those from different classes mealy saying it is a possibility and also that I am writing with the presumption that social factors play a very large part in the disposition and general make up of individuals.

 

completly disagree with this .

for a start ,what leads you to believ that advocating an unambiguus vegan mesage involves "sitting back and looking on while animals increasingly suffer" ? the whole point is that what activists with a rights based approach to campaigning are doing is rejecting welfarist half measures an demanding immediate change  in the way society thinks about an values non humans . the animal welfare position damages the animal rights movement by creating a division between animal cruelty an animal use .animal welfare campaigns such as those animal aid engages in fail to highlight the fact that is central to the true anti speciesist position -that "cruelty" an use are inseperable,an that no use of another sentient being is excusable whatever the circumstanses.by delighting in the exposure of these isolated cases of brutality ,we endorse the nonsensical  public view that enslaving other animals is normal and acceptable,an that cruelty is somthing that can be avoided while we confine,torture an murder them for our own use.

      you point out the large number of people who contacted animal aid in relation to this campaign ,which actualy undermines your own case .the fact that so many members of the public are appaled by what they see as abnormaly "cruel" ,yet hav this strange moral disconect when it comes to consuming the products of animal slavery,just shows how far we hav to go when it comes to educating the world about speciesism .this is a problem which animal aid and its ilk are doing absolutly nothing to fix. what you are describing is this groups utter faliure to challenge the faulty morality of the "ethical meat" brigade . 

   such whole hearted support from those who vote with there cash evry day for nonhuman opression can only mean one thing - this campaign challenged nobodys ingrained prejudise against members of other species,an made nobody rethink there values. on the contrary,regulating the conditions in these concentration camps only  makes consumers more comfortable with there own hypocrisy . yes,it is a disgrace that the animal liberation movement is stil so small- but colaborating with animal torturers and slave dealers to make what they do more acceptable to the general public is hardly the answer.

     

Uptight Primate said:

Animal Aid, like many professional groups, campaign in both arenas (rights/welfare) – depending on the subject or information they are working on – and the audience they are aiming to reach/educate. This is a sensible approach to making progress. In response to this campaign AA received hundreds of calls from the public saying it’s OK to eat meat, but the killing should be humane – and this is were most people are. (the idea that they should’ve used the undercover expose to tell folk to go vegan doesn’t make sense and would’ve have little or no impact). AA now have the opportunity to educate these people, without turning them off, and some of them may well begin their journey towards veganism on the back of this campaign.

AA take the view (as many experienced campaigners do) that it would be fantastic if animals were not killed at all – but they are in staggering (and increasing) numbers. For many of us sitting back and looking on as animals increasingly suffer across the board just isn’t acceptable.

97% of the UK population are happy to eat meat. I could understand this take on it if it looked like we were anywhere near approaching a veg*n population – but we are not –and all the evidence suggests we may never be. The number of veggies is a meagre 3% of UK population – around 10% of these are vegan – somewhere btwn 0.2-0.3% - a tiny number that appears not to have increased for over 10 yrs.

The idea seems to be that the more the animals suffer the better our chances of emotionally blackmailing the public into being vegan – I think this is naive and probably counter productive. How confident are you that this approach can work and how much more suffering will the animals endure along the way?

It is important to campaign for veganism (which AA do), but as only a tiny % of the public are likely to respond to it, surely we have to do more for the animals that suffer in the here and now. And I think Animal Aid do this. It’s very sad to see arzone attack them. Indeed arzone commenter’s spend a lot of time and energy doing just this, I think it’s very unhelpful for the movement and the animals we strive to help.

 

another thing i dont understand is why the fact that people are happy to eat meat,as you point out,means we should make them even happier to eat it by campaigning for "humane" abbatoirs an so on. i fail to see how encouraging this oxymoron is helping animals "in the here and now".

   as well as wasting energy on measures which actualy condem more animals to death ,by failing to confront peoples speciesist way of thinking ,animal aid betray the animals we are fighting for with this kind of campaign.from an ethical point of view,for animal rights activists to applaud the removal of one or two "rogues" from a system which is based completly on rights violations makes no sense.

for the sake of the billions of victims of this holocaust, groups lik animal aid need to get there act together.

Uptight Primate said:

Animal Aid, like many professional groups, campaign in both arenas (rights/welfare) – depending on the subject or information they are working on – and the audience they are aiming to reach/educate. This is a sensible approach to making progress. In response to this campaign AA received hundreds of calls from the public saying it’s OK to eat meat, but the killing should be humane – and this is were most people are. (the idea that they should’ve used the undercover expose to tell folk to go vegan doesn’t make sense and would’ve have little or no impact). AA now have the opportunity to educate these people, without turning them off, and some of them may well begin their journey towards veganism on the back of this campaign.

AA take the view (as many experienced campaigners do) that it would be fantastic if animals were not killed at all – but they are in staggering (and increasing) numbers. For many of us sitting back and looking on as animals increasingly suffer across the board just isn’t acceptable.

97% of the UK population are happy to eat meat. I could understand this take on it if it looked like we were anywhere near approaching a veg*n population – but we are not –and all the evidence suggests we may never be. The number of veggies is a meagre 3% of UK population – around 10% of these are vegan – somewhere btwn 0.2-0.3% - a tiny number that appears not to have increased for over 10 yrs.

The idea seems to be that the more the animals suffer the better our chances of emotionally blackmailing the public into being vegan – I think this is naive and probably counter productive. How confident are you that this approach can work and how much more suffering will the animals endure along the way?

It is important to campaign for veganism (which AA do), but as only a tiny % of the public are likely to respond to it, surely we have to do more for the animals that suffer in the here and now. And I think Animal Aid do this. It’s very sad to see arzone attack them. Indeed arzone commenter’s spend a lot of time and energy doing just this, I think it’s very unhelpful for the movement and the animals we strive to help.

 

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

ARZone Podcasts!

Please visit this webpage to subscribe to ARZone podcasts using iTunes

or

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Follow ARZone!

Please follow ARZone on:

Twitter

Google+

Pinterest

A place for animal advocates to gather and discuss issues, exchange ideas, and share information.

Creative Commons License
Animal Rights Zone (ARZone) by ARZone is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at www.arzone.ning.com.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at www.arzone.ning.com.

Animal Rights Zone (ARZone) Disclaimer

Animal Rights Zone (ARZone) is an animal rights site. As such, it is the position of ARZone that it is only by ending completely the use of other animal as things can we fulfill our moral obligations to them.

Please read the full site disclosure here.

Animal Rights Zone (ARZone) Mission Statement

Animal Rights Zone (ARZone) exists to help educate vegans and non-vegans alike about the obligations human beings have toward all other animals.

Please read the full mission statement here.

Members

Events

Badge

Loading…

© 2020   Created by Animal Rights Zone.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Google+