Aly Posted July 19, 2006 Report Share Posted July 19, 2006 Vanessa can still not post as she does not have posting permissions but has asked that I post this: The committee will comprise Vanessa, Amanda, Lisa from Gap and Abigail. Between us we have a lot of direct rescue contacts and campaign experience. So far no-one else seems to have a problem with the composition - the majority of the rescues and welfare groups are only interested in where and when and we have had a very positive response. The sub-committees are under discussion and will open to anyone to join, we have already had a terrific response from members of various forums. One of the remits for the PR Committee will be to ensure that the ideas and suggestions from all forums will be considered, and all offers of help taken up where possible. I hope that clarifies matters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snow Posted July 19, 2006 Report Share Posted July 19, 2006 Indeed it does Aly thank you - Vanessa should be able to post under her name, if she's still having problems now can you let me know? Thanks, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allie No Dots Posted July 19, 2006 Report Share Posted July 19, 2006 (edited) Hi Aly thanks for that I dont have a problem and im sure no one else does. There was just alot of "talk" about what may or may not be happening and things being suggested. As we all know whats being said isnt always whats going on. Thanks for claifiying tho Edited July 19, 2006 by allie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melp Posted July 19, 2006 Report Share Posted July 19, 2006 It doesn't matter who is involved in any committee. What matters in any campaign like this is that there is credibility behind the organisation of it and that means, if not a democratic, then at least a consensual buy-in by the people that are expected to follow. My objections are all to do with what the objectives of any campaign are [which this committee have not made clear nor have they discussed with us] and then with the methods by which it is intended to achieve these objectives. For example, I personally object to animal testing but I would never have agreed to dig up an old ladies body. We are all so close to the problems in greyhound racing that we may be able to conclude that an outright ban is the only answer but, the general public are nowhere near that. If you want a total ban then there should be no talk of independant regulators or humane treatment of animals instead you have to persuade the public that this sport is so abhorrent merely for racing dogs that no matter what they do, the NRGC could never make the sport acceptable. This also applies to ALL forms of racing, working or otherwise exploiting animals. You can hardly object to racing dogs if you are prepared to accept horse racing, meat eating and even agility. What is the objection to racing? if it is the gambling which makes it evil then campaign to ban gambling. If greyhound racing was like whippet racing would anyone object? I assume not, so why is it wrong to try and make it more like whippet racing where the animals are treated humanely. Single minded folk would rather see the animals suffer than give away their prized objective of banning greyhound racing. It seems to me that the campaign to ban racing has beome more important then saving the dogs from cruelty NOW. Surely the objetive should be stopping the cruelty not banning an industry. That may be the method of achieving the objective but so could funding the RGT with 5m a year for example. Mel, [also with campaign experience] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FoxyGirl Posted July 19, 2006 Report Share Posted July 19, 2006 My objections are all to do with what the objectives of any campaign are [which this committee have not made clear nor have they discussed with us] and then with the methods by which it is intended to achieve these objectives. The broad objective was set out in the initial email - it was a challenge more than an objective: "Various greyhound and all-breed rescues are planning a march in London. The idea is to march under a general banner such as Stop the Slaughter - say to the government here is the problem now sort it - whether that be a ban (unlikely) or independant regulation. I am well aware of the politics of greyhound welfare but if we march under a genral banner then whether you are an abolitionist or independant regulator it doesn't matter. Each group can still proudly wear their t-shirts etc but we will all be marching for a common goal - to stop the slaughter of these beautiful, innocent hounds. " "We need to prove to the government that what is happening is unacceptable to ALL animal lovers, not just the "crackpot greyhound welfare extremists" the industry would have us believe we are!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greyhound pal Posted July 19, 2006 Report Share Posted July 19, 2006 Back to what I said although maybe too nicely to be clear... *What we're going to do is put a plan in place. *The foundations of when where and who's doing what. *Then it goes out and people who want to be involved will. Those who don't, won't. *People who want to attend also will, those who don't, don't. Simple. You can't please everyone... *Objective - to stop the slaughter. Also simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snow Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 Back to what I said although maybe too nicely to be clear... Nicely is the only way your message will get heard, most people react negatively to anything they see as defensive or aggressive, and that will not win allies or support. You can't hope to please everyone nor indeed will you, however, if a few questions asked on a forum cause people to feel that they need to be less nice then how do you expect to be able to deal with the stuff the Industry and it's supporters will throw at you when this does get off the ground? This is a public discussion about what is proposed to be a high profile campaign, and everyone who may be thinking of participating is fully entitled to ask for clarification to enable them to decide whether to join in or not or to state their view on what needs to be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Avon & Somerset GA Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 Back to what I said although maybe too nicely to be clear... *What we're going to do is put a plan in place. *The foundations of when where and who's doing what. *Then it goes out and people who want to be involved will. Those who don't, won't. *People who want to attend also will, those who don't, don't. Simple. You can't please everyone... *Objective - to stop the slaughter. Also simple. Sound like common sense. I'm definately up for promoting in the South West. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Avon & Somerset GA Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 It doesn't matter who is involved in any committee. What matters in any campaign like this is that there is credibility behind the organisation of it and that means, if not a democratic, then at least a consensual buy-in by the people that are expected to follow. My objections are all to do with what the objectives of any campaign are [which this committee have not made clear nor have they discussed with us] and then with the methods by which it is intended to achieve these objectives. For example, I personally object to animal testing but I would never have agreed to dig up an old ladies body. We are all so close to the problems in greyhound racing that we may be able to conclude that an outright ban is the only answer but, the general public are nowhere near that. If you want a total ban then there should be no talk of independant regulators or humane treatment of animals instead you have to persuade the public that this sport is so abhorrent merely for racing dogs that no matter what they do, the NRGC could never make the sport acceptable. This also applies to ALL forms of racing, working or otherwise exploiting animals. You can hardly object to racing dogs if you are prepared to accept horse racing, meat eating and even agility. What is the objection to racing? if it is the gambling which makes it evil then campaign to ban gambling. If greyhound racing was like whippet racing would anyone object? I assume not, so why is it wrong to try and make it more like whippet racing where the animals are treated humanely. Single minded folk would rather see the animals suffer than give away their prized objective of banning greyhound racing. It seems to me that the campaign to ban racing has beome more important then saving the dogs from cruelty NOW. Surely the objetive should be stopping the cruelty not banning an industry. That may be the method of achieving the objective but so could funding the RGT with 5m a year for example. Mel, [also with campaign experience] Its been a long day so excuse me if this is full of typos!!! "We are all so close to the problems in greyhound racing that we may be able to conclude that an outright ban is the only answer but, the general public are nowhere near that." I'm not so sure about that. Since this story broke on Sunday, I have had so many total strangers approach me when I'm walking my dogs and express their disgust and tell me that greyhound racing should be banned!! I think that many people wil boycott/agree with a ban once they know the facts. Whether it IS ever banned is another matter. Personally, I think it will come to an end when people stop attending dog racing & betting on it. The tracks will close one by one and less greyhounds will be bred & less will suffer. You can hardly object to racing dogs if you are prepared to accept horse racing, meat eating and even agility. Well, I dont agree with horse racing and I dont eat meat. Yes, it would be lovely if everyone was veggie, but Im not suggesting that you have to be veggie to speak out against cruelty to greyhounds. Everyone has to start somewhere don't they? I think everyone should be able to voice their objection to something that is cruel? "What is the objection to racing?" For me, the killing of the dogs before & after racing, the injuries, the conditions the dogs are kept in, the fact that thousands of dogs are being put to sleep by pounds because their aren't enough homes for all the other "pet" dogs let alone the greyhounds that add to the numbers.... I'm sure you have read this, but more reasons here: www.greyhoundaction.org.uk "Single minded folk would rather see the animals suffer than give away their prized objective of banning greyhound racing." I find this comment disturbing and offencive! Who would rather see animals suffer??? I don't get this statement at all??? Banning greyhound racing is not a "prized objective" - to me it is simply the only way that these dogs are not going to suffer! I do not see anyway that the greyhound racing industry can operate without suffering. It is such big business I don't think you can compare it to Agility or whippet racing which doesn't have the massive commercial element. I have no objection to people gambling - unless it involves animals who have no choice or control over their involvement. "Surely the objetive should be stopping the cruelty not banning an industry. That may be the method of achieving the objective but so could funding the RGT with 5m a year for example." Giving the RGT 5m a years isn't going to find enough homes for all the dogs that leave the tracks every year. It also isn't going to help the dogs that are "culled" as pups before they even reach the tracks and those that suffer broken legs, backs etc while racing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elricc Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 Celia Amanda you have hit the nail on the head who wants to be there will be there, this is about grasping the moment and trying to change an ahhorrent situation, I do agree with bailing out the water analogy, but also buy into the starfish on the beach one ( I love my cliches today) I want to stop this happening. Please don't let us theorise too much lets save that for when time is less pressing, this is a real opportunity, I don't care who organises it I just want to be there with my dogs trying to stop this slaughter. Laura I can't get on DP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gill (Northampton) Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 Celia Amanda you have hit the nail on the head who wants to be there will be there, this is about grasping the moment and trying to change an ahhorrent situation, I do agree with bailing out the water analogy, but also buy into the starfish on the beach one ( I love my cliches today) I want to stop this happening. Please don't let us theorise too much lets save that for when time is less pressing, this is a real opportunity, I don't care who organises it I just want to be there with my dogs trying to stop this slaughter. Laura I can't get on DP? Thank you - VERY well said indeed Laura, cliches and all. (neither can anyone I think) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tegk68 Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 What is the RSPCA and League Against Cruel Sports take on all of this. Have I got it right that they are going down the line of welfare rather than ban? They seem to be singing from the same hymn sheets. Whilst I'm sure they would love a total ban, does their stance tell us something about public acceptance/attainability? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annie Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 This is what is on the RSPCA site about it Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cycas Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 Has anyone approached the RSPCA or Dogs Trust about the proposed march? It's all very well and good planning stuff on forums, but at the end of the day that doesn't have anything like their power to mobilise large groups of people, nor the same level of authority with the press. Personally, rather than 'ban racing' I'd be inclined to go for demanding a list of 'regulations' so tough and expensive that the industry as it stands could not economically continue. Just my view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tegk68 Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 Has anyone approached the RSPCA or Dogs Trust about the proposed march? It's all very well and good planning stuff on forums, but at the end of the day that doesn't have anything like their power to mobilise large groups of people, nor the same level of authority with the press. Personally, rather than 'ban racing' I'd be inclined to go for demanding a list of 'regulations' so tough and expensive that the industry as it stands could not economically continue. Just my view. Ditto to absolutely all the above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts