View Full Version : Shambo the bull.
Flamin_Squirrel
30-07-07, 10:41 AM
No doubt most of you will have heard this story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6916077.stm
My first thoughts were that it was for the best, as the law should apply equally to everyone and exceptions shouldn't be made, especially imo, for religious reasons.
But on the other hand, as a friend of mine pointed out, is such mean, petty, rigid application of the law like this really a good thing? Are we looking at mindless parking attendant "your car's bumper is 1cm over the line, pay up" mentality?
Thoughts?
He tasted ok on the BBQ yesterday!!
If it's a health risk then: bye bye bull.
I heard that other animals now need to be tested because this bull had tb.
Religion should not be used as an excuse to break/bend the law.
valleyboy
30-07-07, 10:54 AM
The local farmers went mad, as the whole episode ended up possibly causing an outbreak of TB in the area simply because of the amount of time the animal was allowed to stay alive...
Luckypants
30-07-07, 10:58 AM
It should have been shot the day it was diagnosed. What a load of old bullocks to say because it is 'holy' to Hindu's it should be allowed to endager animal health by continuing to live.
If any farmer now suffers losses or indeed goes out of business because of a Bovine TB outbreak in the area will these 'monks' compensate him? Will thier 'god' deliver him from his creditors? No? Didn't think so!
Grrrrrrrrr!!!!!!! Bloody religion!
If it's a health risk then: bye bye bull.
I heard that other animals now need to be tested because this bull had tb.
Religion should not be used as an excuse to break/bend the law.
Im with date dodging kinvig ;) on this one, its for health reasons I believe
My whole ethos on this is that religion is a choice, the law is not.
I get very hot under the collar on subject matter such as this but my take on it is this. You are free to practise your religion, whatever it my be but you must practise it within the boundarys of the law.
If the relegion you "chose" to practise cannot be done within the confines of the UK laws then there are often many places/countries where it can be, so therefore you have another choice.
The Bull posed a risk, sacred or not. It therefore must be put down for the good of all., end of.
Its...A...Cow.....
I've eaten enough not to be too attached. Give it a decent last rites ceremony and then let it wander off to cow heaven....:smt039
21QUEST
30-07-07, 11:17 AM
How are we defining 'petty' ?
How are we defining 'rigid' ?
Is it all relative depending on what side of the road you walk on?
.......no smart answers now :rolleyes:
I'll have to read a bit more before giving a definitive answer/view. Right now, cannot see how it wasn't the right decision.
Ben
I think in retrospect Mr Spock perhaps said it best 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few'.....Ill get me coat
fizzwheel
30-07-07, 11:19 AM
I thought it was petty, but then I asked Liz yesterday about what TB does to a herd of cattle as she used to work on a farm she knows more than I do about it.
Now I think it was the right decision to put the bull down.
Its...A...Cow.....
I've eaten enough not to be too attached. Give it a decent last rites ceremony and then let it wander off to cow heaven....:smt039
Plus of course a lot of us use dead cow hide to protect our own hide
I think the fact that badgers carry tb is a much bigger issue than one bull being kept alive. Tb can be transmitted from badgers to cows, they roam freely and they're a protected species which is becoming more numerous...I've seen loads on the roads this year...
Bottom line is, its the law. The law may be wrong but you can't risk that by bending the law because it upsets someone. Do the necessary research then change the law.
This was only an issue because of a religious belief. A bit like those that wear turbans (spell?) don't have to wear crash helmets - that just doesn't make sense.
Lets see a scenario of a lone bullock in a none religious setting tested fo TB and see if there is an outcry... I suspect there won't be because health will then come first?
Flamin_Squirrel
30-07-07, 01:50 PM
Some interesting views!
I've no knowledge of bovine TB or how easily or not it spreads. I take it strict segrigation is no garuntee of preventing it?
My whole ethos on this is that religion is a choice, the law is not.
I get very hot under the collar on subject matter such as this but my take on it is this. You are free to practise your religion, whatever it my be but you must practise it within the boundarys of the law.
If the relegion you "chose" to practise cannot be done within the confines of the UK laws then there are often many places/countries where it can be, so therefore you have another choice.
The Bull posed a risk, sacred or not. It therefore must be put down for the good of all., end of.
I'd tend to agree with you. But just to make things interesting, if it were theoretically possible to reduce the risk of the TB spreading from this bull to near 0 such that no harm to anyone/thing could be expected, should it still be put down? That wouldn't be granting an exception for a religious group, but to anyone prepared to go to the lengths needed to eliminate the risk that the law was there to prevent.
cows are herd animals and should be mixing with other cows not shut away however comfortably with only humans for company
northwind
30-07-07, 08:40 PM
It all hinges on the risk, doesn't it? I've seen a few independant experts say that there was no risk of contagion, because of the remoteness from other animals. But I don't know much about bovine TB, so...
Pedrosa
31-07-07, 09:34 AM
Living in Spain I am aghast at the manner in which Shambo has been treated. Here we know how to honour and respect such animals.:cool:
I would then suggest an amendment to the law to theoretically factor such circumstances.
There should be no exceptions to the law! As Jugde Dredd ;) (except for speeding bikers)
Some interesting views!
I've no knowledge of bovine TB or how easily or not it spreads. I take it strict segrigation is no garuntee of preventing it?
I'd tend to agree with you. But just to make things interesting, if it were theoretically possible to reduce the risk of the TB spreading from this bull to near 0 such that no harm to anyone/thing could be expected, should it still be put down? That wouldn't be granting an exception for a religious group, but to anyone prepared to go to the lengths needed to eliminate the risk that the law was there to prevent.
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.