Pen Farthing - Afghan Animal Rescue

Sadly too many people have bought into this government's 'dead cat' (pun intended) diversion. Had a competent government acted sooner as other countries did, this would be an 'and finally' feel-good story on the news.

Overlook the government left the names of Afghan staff for the Taliban to find, forget Starmer urged the government in July to expedite the evacuation of Afghan translators, don't worry that the PM and Foreign Secretary are on/decide to go on holiday when the crisis unfolds....no, direct the focus on a privately funded venture who organised early to rescue some animals - he's the villain.

This government relies on 'useful idiots' to perpetuate misdirection to survive.

Personally, I'm glad he succeeded just like I'm glad Operation Cowboy was a success in WW2.

 

I honestly don't think the political angle adds up. And I say that as no fan of this government. Boris and pals are populist to the core and would try anything if they got a whiff public opinion favoured it. Surely a better diversion would have been our brave boys being sent into downtown Kabul to round up Farthing, his menagerie and staff and then guide them in a humanitarian convoy through the streets to the airport, where the animals get loaded onto a RAF plane and then whisked quicktime back to Blighty to be personally met off the plane by Boris, Raab and a 40 gun salute, as strains of the national anthem drift away in the gentle summer breeze....?

 

I disagree. It has been a monumental f**k up but the hot topic of discussion has been 'animals before humans'. This villain has been tying up government time to rescue animals rather than humans...that's the narrative.

The 'useful idiots' disseminate this into the public discourse, release the expletive filled message of an understandably frustrated man to back up their 'he's the villain here' narrative and hey presto...support for the government...without scratching below the surface.

 

Really Farthing's just the latest in a long line of people who've tried to tame the UK media beast and harness it solely for their own ends, only to find it soon rebounds on them with interest. There's nothing new in that and I'm not wholly convinced it needs much manipulation from the government to kick it off. It's just the default setting of our journalism - puff people up and then knock 'em down and hope that the act of getting people to choose sides sells papers, ad time on rolling news channels etc.

I see the 'animals before humans' thing as more a reflection on our country than a critique of Farthing personally. I've seen political correspondents saying they've spoken to MPs, who wish to remain anonymous, whose offices were besieged with emails demanding Farthing and his dogs and cats get out, while seeing barely anything about the Afghan refugees even as this thing peaked in the last fortnight.

I'd also say there are 'useful idiots' on both sides. I lost count of the number of people on Twitter late last week talking to each other trying to find out who in the Taliban or at Kabul airport they could tweet/email to try to convince to let him through...

 

Then why release the details of the expletive filled message if not to paint Farthing as a 'patsy'? It's an obvious misdirection.

Considering, the Home Secretary stated the max number of refugees we would accept is 20k over 5 years and I have seen alot of unhappiness and push back over that number yet the govt remained unmoved. A scenario where no Afghans or animals made it to the UK would have pleased alot of people.

Yet with a govt looking to effectively outlaw protest, and diminish judicial review then pressuring their MP is the only voice they have left until an election. I assume you don't want want to dilute the power of the people further by banning them from contacting their MP for what you consider a trivial matter.

Perhaps if there had been 200 Churchill statues trying to get out, then the govt would have moved Heaven & Earth...that's more of an indictment of this country.

We'll have to agree to disagree on what we consider is the true reflection of this country.

 

I don’t believe we can say all life matters, then start creating reasons for why some life doesn’t matter

Again just my view

 

Farthing's (and Dyer's) attacks on the government and Wallace's special adviser were pointed, highly personal and deliberately high profile. I don't think anyone can expect to try to play politics with professional politicians and think they'll simply and passively let it happen to them. They're going to make sure their version of events gets out too. Such is life. I see he's apologised for how he approached that call now, which is the right thing to do and probably prevents more recordings 'leaking'.

And I'm not suggesting at all people be banned from contacting MPs. I'm simply saying that it's a very telling that people in this country can be roused from their slumber to write en mass about stray cats and dogs, but not by the plight of their fellow human beings (or about outlawing protest or diminishing judicial review for that matter).

This seems to be circling the political forum drain now so yeah, maybe best parked as an agree to disagree.

 

Something I remember from my primary school:

RSPCA founded in 1824.

NSPCC founded 1884 (as the London SPCC).

 

Having re-read my post, I wasn't suggesting you would welcome banning contacting MPs but I take your point about what the electorate will become passionate about - I'm much much more concerned about protests and judicial review, those really scare me.

 

UK citizens must be free to communicate whatever is on their mind to MPs.

If MPs find they are being overloaded, nothing is stopping them employing people or technology to help.

If MPs didn’t realise social media is a double edged sword then they are pretty thick, they seem happy to use it when it suits them. Managing communication well has become a key skill requirement for the job and too many haven’t realised it.

If MPs want to be unreachable and untouchable that must be resisted by everyone.

 

We’re not really a nation of animal lovers though. Most people don’t want to know about how their bacon or eggs are produced in cruel intensive farming. They just want to eulogise bacon butties.

A stoopid majority consider people who are concerned about such things as wackos or hippies. That concerns about hunting and shooting for fun are just too class war for them.

The environment and habitats? Build on that. Insects or garden weeds? Spray them with cheap poisons.

 

That last comment is just nonsense, at least from a horticultural hobby perspective (I can't speak for agriculture).

Huge numbers of people garden organically now and 'cheap posions' are increasingly prohibited.

 

I suppose this means that Round Up (Glyphosate) and slug pellets are fine?

 

Non-organic slug pellets have been banned.

It's my impression that people don't use glyphosate except as a total last resort. I've never used it.

You only need to compare gardening programmes on TV now with those in the 70s and early 80s to see how much has changed in this respect.

 

True dat. I was shocked to see a whole long four tier shelf in Robert Dyas stacked out with different types of weedkiller and pesticides. There were so many different types! Next to them was a 'wasp trap' which was reduced to clear. It seemed another bad idea. I know they can be a pain in the arse, but they have their place in nature and it's short sighted to be killing them. I found this out when we had a nest last year right by the front door. I forget how much the council wanted, some fantastic amount, and I'd be farked if I was doing it myself. So I googled it and just left 'em in peace until the winter and then the first frost killed 'em all off. Then blocked the hole in the wall up with filler. I was quite happy with that.

They weren't even much of a menace indoors or around the house - I suppose they must have been off up the town buzzing round ice creams and such.

 

Round up is the biggest selling weed killer and that’s glyphosate.

Slug pellets with metaldehyde aren’t even banned until next spring. I agree things are a little better, but this is ZZ level contentment with the norm.

 

Yes, I know - thanks. I never said people don't use it at all. I am saying that people use it much less routinely than they used to, and are much more aware of the deletorious consequences if they do. To just blithely say that people spray it around willy-nilly disregards the hundreds of thousands, probably millions, who have changed their behaviour over the past couple of decades.

Organic gardening wasn't even a thing in Percy Thrower's time. He would spray weedkiller liberally on his borders.

 

Blimey, you really are obsessed.

It's getting creepy now, Moose.

And while you are at it. I have a front and back garden, and havn't used weedkiller for something like 20 years, in case you were thinking of turning up and putting a petrol-soaked rag through my letterbox.

 

C’mon, the point stands. While many are more aware there are plenty of us that eat cruelly produced food, use harmful chemicals and are more critical of annoying eco worriers than corporations. You can’t deny our status as a nation of animal lovers is barely warranted. Even many people who keep them as pets would routinely get them with docked ears and tails from dodgy breeders or simply plain stolen.

 

Thanks, but you really didn’t need to bother.

 

Officials dressed from head to foot in plastic chemical suits, protected by a dozen police, dragging a very frightened Alpaca into a horse box to kill it tells you all you need to know about how little as a nation we love animals.

If it needed to be done it should have been by a single vet, calmly, without stressing the animal. Humanely.

But no, DEFRA and the Police have to act like total ****s.

 

I'm happy to be correct but I understood the owner could simply have arranged for the local vet to come round and quietly and calmly euthanised it, probably while it was sleeping? But that she refused to cooperate at all and instead invited people to 'guard' the animal and to resist the authorities?

 

Obstruction by owner and protestors justifies acting like total ****s does it?

 

Native Americans must weep at what the conquerers have made of their land.

 

Maybe, but it's far more fun to blame the authorities.

 

Well surely it shows that there are plenty of animal lovers out there, otherwise the owner would not have done as she did and this wouldn´t be such a newsworthy story.

Whether it reflects well on the government is another matter.

 

If you can sketch out a viable plan that would have enabled the alpaca to be euthanised "...by a single vet, calmly, without stressing the animal. Humanely." without any cooperation from the owner and with obstructive protesters outside, I think you'd be doing well. Maybe a sniper?

 

You accept that the animal had to be euthanized, right? Because of TB and what that could do to a whole load of other animals.

So with the owner protesting and inviting animal militants to 'defend' it, a normal vet is not going to want to go round there and do it. He/she won't want the abuse and possible follow up attacks - we know some types even resort to bombings or arson.

So you are the authorities. How do you deal with the situation from here? What action would you take?

 

According to the alpaca owner he was murdered.

 

So in the scenario the owner had committed some other crime, perhaps hit and run, you are proposing the police would have no way to arrest her and take her away from her farm, and in doing so separate her from her animals?

 

I’m not proposing anything other than when an animal is euthanised it should be in a calm humane stress free way, not dragged frightened into a horse box by ****s in hazmat suits

I have had enough dogs euthanised at old age and in pain from cancer etc to know what a calm humane stress free process by a vet who knows what they are doing looks like

****s in hazmat suits isn’t it