Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
1 September 2008
11:505513#1
There is a report by the BBC as follows:
"""""The Ministry of Defence is to meet an animal rights group to discuss alternatives to the bearskin hats worn by guards at Buckingham Palace.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) has approached Vivienne Westwood and Stella McCartney to design a new shape for the 18in hat.
The charity has previously called for fake fur to be used, but said the MoD was not happy with prototype designs.
Baroness Taylor, minister for defence procurement, will meet Peta on Tuesday. """"""""""""""
It says it all about this Government that they take these nutty extremists so seriously. As for asking McCartney and Westwood to design new hats for the Guards, well the mind just boggles, what a totally absurd and idiotic idea.
Lets just look at a couple of facts about the bearskins:
1/ No animals are specifically killed to provide them, they are a side-product of the annual bear cull that is done for conservation purposes in Canada. To stop buying the skins will not save the life of a single bear, indeed it will deprive conservation of some much needed cash.
2/ The skins are very durable and many worn today are 50 or so years old. Artificial fur would not last nearly so long (and certainly would not look so good). The costs would also be higher.
I would suggest taking a look at this article on the link below. It tells you a lot about the subject and places this loonacy of PETA into perspective.
http://www.soldiermagazine.co.uk/flashback/pages/437.pdfGuest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
1 September 2008
15:395516#2
Ive been a way a couple of days again so havent heard the latest on this one but I do remember it cropped up in the news a few months ago.
You must remember though BarryW that the government in these kinds of situations are very often responding to public opinion. If public opinion demands changes to whatever problem or practice, and we are all very sensitive to animal welfare in these times, then it is probably right that they, the government, listen and then act accordingly.
The thought in the public conciousness that bears have to die in order for soldiers to wear these hats is not really palatable right now.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
1 September 2008
16:335517#3
There are NO animal walfare issues involved and no bear dies to provide the bearskins. It is a by-product of a necessary cull done for conservation purposes, indeed cutting off this revenue may reduce conservation funding.
Changing the hats will not save a single bear.
The MoD and Government should not even take seriously irrational extremist rubbish like this. No decision should be made based on such emotional ignorance.
The public you speak of will wear their leather shoes with no complaint as they tuck into their steak. In the way that leather can be regarded as a by-product of food production these hats are also a by-product of conservation.
1 September 2008
19:005522#4
Some of The Public don't wear leather shoes or eat steak.....
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
1 September 2008
19:185524#5
It is the appitite for steak and leather shoes that leads to deforestation and a lack of land for other crops. The amount of land given over to grazing for a herd would provide enough cereal crops to feed a fair sized town. As to my views on killing for conservation, I think I have made them clear on here in the past. Give me PETA lunatics over 'killing for sport or pleasure' morons anyday.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Guest 641- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 2,335
1 September 2008
19:245528#6
Quite a few of veggies that I have known in the past admit to enjoying bacon sandwiches
1 September 2008
20:555536#7
Then they are not veggies, it's simple and clear!!! Vegetarianism and veganism are not fashion accessories, they are a way of life!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
1 September 2008
21:255537#8
i have problem with eating meat, though if i was confronted with the animal beforehand, and told that it was being
killed on my behalf, i may well go veggie.
i wear and use article of leather as the animal is not killed for that reason.
i have never understood why a human being can kill a creature for fun.
barry w-s.
your mention of the bacon sandwich reminds me of a jewish family i knew many years ago, that kept to most of the dietary rules, but the "bacon sandwich" could not be resisted.
i can remember going into their house after they had partaken and complaining about the smell and steamed up kitchen.
their reasoning was that if they opened the kitchen window, the smell and their secret would be out.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
1 September 2008
22:205539#9
The only comment i will make and i know it will get our barryw going is that i have always campaigned to stop animal cruelty such as fox hunting (supposed to be a sport!!)
Ijoined the labour party as the only party that said\it would protect badgers, sadly even the labour govt didnt inthe end.
so thats my view
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
1 September 2008
22:265542#10
Thats our secret weapon against the veggies - that smell of frying bacon, two slices of bread, dripping in melted butter with two slices of best hot back bacon in between................... Imagine it, smell it - Chris, even your mouth would water!
Didnt know you was a veggie, Chris, by the way!
Now I am suddenly hungry, now is there any bacon left in the fridge? wanna slice Chris?
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
1 September 2008
22:355545#11
i always respect peoples religious or moralistic beliefs.
i remember moaning to someone about the smell from next door,of garlic, with a family of sikhs cooking.
i was reminded that they would probably gag when i was grilling a steak.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
1 September 2008
23:055552#12
No Barry, I probably ate half a pig for lunch as I had to finish the bacon left by two of children. I have also worked in an abattoir so know what it is like from that end, in fact my first Saturday job was in a butchers and when not delivering I was out the back plucking and gutting chickens. One of my Jewish friends used to call round on fast days just to get a bacon sandwich.
My point was that producing beef takes up far more resources than can be justified in terms of produce and, in the case of the leather that comes as an important part of that production, there are perfectly good synthetic substitutes. Knowing first hand the suffering of animals in reasonably 'humane' slaughter houses I can never support any sort of killing for morbid pleasure, whatever excuse is used to justify it.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
2 September 2008
07:035560#13
Getting back to the point....
This is simply not an animal welfare issue, nothing to do with hunting for pleasure or not, nothing to do with protecting an endangered species.
It is about a cull that would happen anyway from which the Army take a few pelts every year to make the bearskins.
Not a single animal will be 'saved' by changing the hats.
PETA have no case to make, it is purely emotional nonsense based on ignorance and plain stupidity.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
2 September 2008
07:455562#14
Would be worth knowing how much truth there is in Barryw comments, could any be saved? we only have his word!!!
and don't forget hes one that would support such things as fox hunting.
2 September 2008
07:465563#15
Only a boy could call emotional responses "nonsense"......!!!!!
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
2 September 2008
07:485565#16
BERN
WITH YOU ON THIS ONE
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
2 September 2008
08:325578#17
Keith I did provide a link to an article that makes clear the source of the pelts. My facts are correct.
Bern an emotional response with no real basis for it, is nonsense. If it could be demonstrated that the bears were being killed specificaly to provide the pelts then there would be a case for PETA to make. There is not.
If public policy of any kind were to be determined by emotion with no sound basis we would be in an even worse mess than we are now.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
2 September 2008
08:435580#18
Barry
Doesn't the thought of a bear being killed for any reason,other than self protection,not upset you?Killing one of God's creatures whether it be for sport ivory sexual potions bearskin hats or crocodile shoes just makes me shudder.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
2 September 2008
09:295583#19
No Marek, not at all. I am not an expert but the conservation experts in Canada say it is necessary and I will go along with their expert knowledge. As indeed I totally agree with those working to conserve the elephant in parts of Africa, who encourage controlled sporting shoots to the greater benefit of the elephant population.
I do not have a Beatrix Potter view of wildlife as do so many in our overly soft pampered world.
Guest 641- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 2,335
2 September 2008
09:445585#20
I wonder how many bearskins are made on an annual basis, as BarryW said, most bearskins have a life expectancy of 50 years and when a guardsman leaves the army I don't think he takes his busby with him
So taking that on board the Guards would not need that many, I'll have to look into this further unless BarryW has the figures - I'm sure BarryW is correct with regard to the cull for conservation purposes as this has been brought up before.
Vivianne Westwood and Stella McCartney redesigning the guardsmans badge of office! What a daft idea!