A new puppy farm to open in Hull shortly

petition

https://www.change.org/p/rt-hon-david-cameron-mp-reverse-the-government-s-decision-to-give-the-go-ahead-for-a-puppy-farm-in-hull-created-with-the-purpose-of-providing-beagle-puppies-to-laboratories-for-animal-testing?utm_source=petition_update&utm_medium=email&utm_content=featured_news&tk=Cr9beNPBZpspGLnUx31t41PXoiQ7VbXIIjP1NzDXg9k

how can i sign up to support this

Absolute ****.

The government have just given the go ahead for a puppy farm in Hull to supply animals to laboratories for testing. These beautiful and loving animals will never know love compassion, just pain, suffering and neglect! It's WRONG and CRUEL!!!!

150,000 signatures! Let's keep going!

Emma Hart
Newton-le-Willows, United Kingdom
18 Jul 2015 — The response to this has been heart warming! Keep sharing the petition to gain more momentum so the government have NO CHOICE but sit up and take notice!

Two important factors that need addressing are:

1) The effectiveness of such research, as, "90% drugs tested on animals fail” – British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection.

2) The ethics of breeding animals to ultimately sentence them to a life of pain and suffering without any future happiness.

We need to act now and stop this!

Thanks to you all for your amazing support!!!!

Total ****. Apart from the petition find out who operates this 'farm' and lambast them with complaints.
What sort of human being could work at one of these places. I'd guess the type recruited by the SS in nazi Germany.

Can't me much job satisfaction, one would think.

Think about it Kenny. working there every day and witnessing animals suffering.
Only an absolute **** could do that job.

True, aka, but that will apply in the food industry very much, as well.

More than 345,000 sign petition calling on PM to reverse beagle farm plans

Still time for chit chat to sign and maybe make a difference.


https://www.change.org/p/rt-hon-david-cameron-mp-reverse-the-government-s-decision-to-give-the-go-ahead-for-a-puppy-farm-in-hull-created-with-the-purpose-of-providing-beagle-puppies-to-laboratories-for-animal-testing/u/11443084?tk=GEJR2km_tL6PXluJkUCGw3JfHHtvfMJNC0gquEB6dRY&utm_source=petition_update&utm_medium=email

Deborah Minns ·  Top commenter · Kingston upon Hull
Here is the desktop link for 'Oppose B&K Universal' on Facebook. Thank you https://www.facebook.com/OpposeBandKUniversal?ref=hl
Reply ·  · 18 · 19 July at 10:47

Stu Ritchie · Grunt at Bombardier Commercial Aircraft
Disgusting is this what our taxes r for!
Reply ·  · 10 · 19 July at 09:45

Kerry Plociennik · Hope high school salford
That is Disgusting
Reply ·  · 8 · 19 July at 12:50

Elaine Ogden ·  Top commenter · Goblin college the ukon
This is barbaric an d I am disgusted!!
Reply ·  · 3 · 19 July at 11:00

Maggie May
Mr Cameron NEED to start listening to the people and STOP ignoring what the public clearly wants NOT to happen. ..
Puppy farms for animal testing, cruelty to animals, to repel the fox hunting ban... It goes on and on, taking up arms on Syria. ..
will he ever learn? Look at what legacy Blair left with... he's going down the same road. Shame on you cameron and NOT in my name.
Reply ·  · 2 · 4 hours ago

Lynsey Jayne Brueton
I think this is disgusting.. There is no need for any animal testing in this day and age xxxx
Reply ·  · 2 · 4 hours ago

Sheila Goodfriend
Horrible. Haven't we humans evolved at all?
Reply ·  · 2 · 4 hours ago

Ross Martin
This is totally unnecessary and barbaric NO NO NO
Reply ·  · 2 · 19 July at 20:00

Sarah Everitt · Blackpool
Appaulled
Reply ·  · 2 · 4 hours ago

Michael Jones
What makes people think the human race is the only species that has the right to live. We killed more people than any animal would kill it's own. Remember the 1st and 2nd world war, to name just two. David Cameron, your BARKING MAD.
Reply ·  · 1 · 4 hours ago

Margaret Murphy · Sainsburys but now RETIRED at Sainsbury's
Thank God for people like you Emma, who take time out to look after our animals, whom can't do anything for themselves. Without our support God knows what endless cruelty would happen to our animals. If we all pull together we will achieve such a lot. Our animals need us.
Reply ·  · 1 · 12 hours ago

Barry Speed
Better to carry out the testing on Humans. How about as part of an Immigration Integration System.
Reply ·  · 1 · 19 July at 11:11

380,321 signed

Very good of you.

Tommy won't sign it (nap)

Lynsey Jayne Brueton
I think this is disgusting.. There is no need for any animal testing in this day and age xxxx

Stem cell testing provides the same results without putting animals to a life of misery.

I've heard that before aka', maybe it's more expensive ffs.

380,808 signatures. About 2 from chit chat ffs!

380,861, blimey this is moving fast.

I've signed.

Slippy hasn't, and he really owes me a favour!

All about picking your audience, Kenny

Loads of people care about unnecessary testing of stuff on animals, BUT not many care about a planning decision to allow dog breeding on a particular site in Hull.

I can't see the difference aka'. I think the answer is that certain (most) people feel  a tad saddened for 5 seconds, and then forget about it.

**** me, this petition's getting 50 signatures a minute. Brilliant.

kenny mann  • July 21, 2015 11:14 PM BST 
I can't see the difference aka'. I think the answer is that certain (most) people feel  a tad saddened for 5 seconds, and then forget about it.

Sorry you've lost me there Kenny.

Almost one click per second. That is good.

I think this is one of the toughest questions/debates there is.

If testing on animals got the cure for say cancer then you got cancer or a loved one such as a child, morally would you not take the drug or administer it to your child if it saved their life?

Also how many of you would refuse to take life saving drugs because it used animals in its testing.

I agree drug testing on animals should be avoided if there are any other possible alternatives such as akabula says stem technology etc. But I think there are some cases where it cannot be avoided if the drug treatment is to progress.

Very sad to see beautiful animals like those puppies used for research though

Signed.

So sad

My first dog was a beagle

Signed

some cures and animals used in testing:

smallpox - cows
diabetes (insulin) - dogs and fish
rubella - monkey
tuberculosis - cows and sheep
penicillin - mice
organ transplantations - dogs, sheep, cows and pigs
aids treatment - monkeys
anticoagulants - cats
rabies - dogs and rabbits

And the list continues.

So who on this thread would refuse treatments or drugs that used animal testing?

The point is that there is no need to use animals nowadays.

Aka, but this is not the common view, which is why it is still commonplace and legal.

Well quite a few scientists have taken that view. Being legal doesn't mean it is okay.
It's legal to stone women to death in some countries. Do you think that makes it right?

that's simply not true unfortunately akabula (im not sure where you have got this information from)

Also computer models have greatly improved the lowering of the need for animal testing, but again has not eradicated the use. Its a tough one I agree and very sad to use animals, especially those such as dogs and cats which we see as pets.

stem technology can only go so far. Also tests often have to be carried out say on pregnant animals (mainly mice) to see the side effects.

Eg how can you use stems etc for new organ transplants? Also there is 2 main treatments for parkinsons disease (both methods used animal testing). How can you use stems or a computer model for something as complicated as the brain, especially as it has to be a working one to see the various effects etc.

If testing on animals got the cure for say cancer then you got cancer or a loved one such as a child, morally would you not take the drug or administer it to your child if it saved their life?

That's really loading your question to suit your argument.

its a fair question akabula.

animal testing has provided the medical world with some amazing treatments (even antibiotics which im sure at some point everyone here has used).

So if you are against it then how can you use products that have come directly from animal testing?

Double standards spring to mind.

Today—because experiments on animals are cruel, expensive, and generally inapplicable to humans—the world’s most forward-thinking scientists have moved on to develop and use methods for studying diseases and testing products that replace animals and are actually relevant to human health. These modern methods include sophisticated tests using human cells and tissues (also known as in vitro methods), advanced computer-modeling techniques (often referred to as in silico models), and studies with human volunteers. These and other non-animal methods are not hindered by species differences that make applying animal test results to humans difficult or impossible, and they usually take less time and money to complete.

“We have moved away from studying human disease in humans. … We all drank the Kool-Aid on that one, me included. … The problem is that [animal testing] hasn’t worked, and it’s time we stopped dancing around the problem. … We need to refocus and adapt new methodologies for use in humans to understand disease biology in humans.” —Dr. Elias Zerhouni

he said animal testing hasn't worked.

And he wants to be taken seriously?

I mean take hiv as a recent example.

The life expectancy of someone with HIV is the same as a person without HIV.

Stem technology, computers where both used as well as testing on monkeys. Ask the leading scientists involved with these pharmaceutical companies would it have been possible without the animal testing and they would categorically tell you without the animal testing it would not have been possible to achieve this.

And some will tell you it is possible.
Whatever way you approach this making an animal suffer in this way is barbaric.

not those involved in making the breakthroughs and cures you wont akabula.

There is no way the treatments of Parkinson's can possibly be done without animal testing as reasons previously mentioned, the same with organ transplants. Even common sense can tell you that.

I can accept people have different views and they believe it is morally wrong to test on animals even if it has cured/controlled some of the worlds biggest viruses etc.

But then surely they should not use any medicines/treatments that have directly come from animal testing.

Common sense. Don't be silly.
Unless you have some intimate knowledge of this and I suspect you like me don't then I'll take the word of the scientists/doctors.
Previous testing could have been used to create computer models for future testing and all but eradicated the need for animals to be used.

the so called scientist you used to quote in the statement said animal testing hasn't worked. Hmmmmmmmm strange considering the drugs and cures that have come from it.

Secondly how do you think understanding organ transplants can be done without actually doing well errrr organ transplants.

It isn't something you can well lets just swop over their heart with this one and hope for the best.In the future brain transplants have even been mentioned as a possibility, and there are serious complications with that one. 100% animal testing will be needed.

So lets sum it up Akabula.

1/ you have used products tested on animals in the past.

2/ you will continue to use products tested on animals.

3/ any new cures/treatments that have been developed from animal testing you will use if it saves/prolongs/improves your quality of life.

So I think you should step off the moral high horse you put yourself on.

Lets just hope modern science can reduce the use of animal testing to a very small number and when only absolutely necessary.

So detesting animal cruelty is taking the moral high ground.
A pretty pathetic summing up of your argument but akin to your stance on the subject.

BTW Are you assuming the three points you've made?

If scientists are saying that animal testing has not worked, then why are new puppy farms being built ?

well I presume akabula you had your jabs as a kid, also that you have used anti biotics and will continue to do so as and when needed.

I also presume if you had some disease or got diabetes need a transplant or kidney dialysis etc etc that you wouldn't turn down these life saving treatments due to your stance on animal testing.

If you say you will never use any of these treatments ever again including anti biotics) then fair play. But I don't think that will be the case.

Signed by me and the missus.

If labs need to carry out these tests, maybe it would be an alternative career choice for people who are considering joining ISIS to become suicide bombers. All the benefits of martyrdom without the hate. 

Just a thought.

@maleuk tbh I don't give a feck what you think of my stance.
You obviously lack something as a human being by defending animal cruelty.

They should use some of the UK's prison population for testing, those that are serving 15 or more years.

A Doctor once suggested keeping a body going artificially after death for the purposes of research.
He was shot down in flames.

im not at all into animal cruelty in the slightest.

But the reality is animal testing has given a lot of medical benefits that everyone use. That's a fact, its a bit hypocritical to condemn animal testing but then use the products that have come as a direct result of it. Which you have not denied akabula.

http://news.sky.com/story/1523375/new-drug-may-slow-alzheimers-decline-by-30-percent

Another big breakthrough in helping Alzheimer suffers announced today (link above). Mice where used in these experiments.

So Akbula should all research like this be stopped? And as its to do with the brain living animals (mice) do have to be used. So you cannot answer the research is fine but there is no need to experiment on animals as the researchers say they have to have functioning brains to do the research.

Mince. No breakthrough as yet so don't twist the outcome. Promising was the term used.
As regards your continually use of loaded questions maybe this will finally get through to you.
Irrespective of whatever has happened in the past or is likely to happen in the future I am 100% against the use of animals in medical research.

so should these experiments continue or not?

a simple yes or no will do.

or is the question to difficult for you?

so as you are against animal research why not take the stand and refuse to use all products that have used animal testing for their research?

or I guess you say 1 thing but act another and take the medicine etc.

That's called hypocrisy.

it also has not gone un-noticed that several of those who have signed on here or the thread starter haven't commented since.

And what the f*ck has that got to do with it.
Animals should not be used to experiment on full stop.
All previous research could have and should have been used to create computer programmes to run side by side with stem cell experimentation.
The reason animals are used is cost.

its because its a difficult question that some like to turn a blind eye too and ignore.

There is very few people in this world who turn down life saving treatments because of animal testing has been used in the development of the treatment.

The question is then at what point should animal testing have been banned? 10 years ago? 20 years ago? 50 years ago?


Its not cost the reason animals are used, it because they need living organs and tissues bigger than stems including fully working brains. You seem to disregard this even with the news out TODAY regarding Alzheimer's and the work currently being undertaken.

I will answer maleuk01.

I would accept a drug that had been tested on animals to save a member of my family, I don't think it makes me a hypocrite. I would also kill another human if it meant saving a member of my immediate family.

what about saving yourself?

Not arsed about myself

ok so you honestly would turn down life saving treatment for yourself and die, rather than use a drug that had been tested on animals?

If so then you make a fair stance.

Do you also see the dilemma in this question steamship and as to why its not a simple black and white issue?

It's only a dilemma for peep like you  who seem devoid of common sense.
No experiments on animals. It's wrong and it's cruel.
All testing could be done on dead people kept 'alive' artificially.

akbula you talk some bullsh1t.

like a vegetarian spouting off about not eating animals whilst pouring milk into their coffee.

I think the one talking b*llshit has been yourself.
But listen if you're the type of c*nt who can live with supporting animal cruelty then good on you, it is your right.

I don't support animal cruelty as mentioned.

However I am in favour of animal testing where absolutely necessary to improve medical advancement.

License's should be strict and should be applied for with reasons given why certain animals are needed and why current knowledge in the field is not enough. Cost is not enough reason for animal testing.

The animals should all be well cared for, well fed, watered and housed in a fair environment and given enough mental stimulation.

The sight of a young child living a normalish life after various transplants, drug treatments rather than dying is enough for me to see the importance of such experiments.

What a load of chyte.

Signed. I hate testing on animals. So cruel. If we can't find a way to cure a disease without hurting innocent animals, so be it. What right do we have to make innocent, intelligent animals suffer so cruelly?

I tell you what, I'll accept testing on animals when we test animal treatments on humans. What gives us the right to not suffer while other creatures, many who were on earth before us, do.

I won't be signing it. I am against testing cosmetics on animals.

However, all scientific research for medicinal drugs has to be tested on animals. Starting with mice and so on then onto dogs. Like it or not scientific advancement comes from controlled testing on animals and always has done. Unless of course you want to advocate human guinea pigs.

Sad as it is it's a necessary evil. And you HAVE ALL used medical drugs tested on animals because 100% of the drugs on the market start with animal testing.

And nobody is 'supporting animal cruelty.' You are putting an emotive context into supporting science to help humans and other animals. Yes other animals. Any two bob bit animal rights quack can spout nonsense about not needing animals for research and development but it flies in the face of the vast majority of reputable scientists.

According to the US-based Foundation for Biomedical Research, 'animal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century - for both human and veterinary health.'

But animal research hasn't benefited humans alone. Animals also have improved healthcare and a longer lifespan. Farm animals, household pets, wild species and endangered species are all benefiting from the research conducted through animals. There are vaccines for rabies, distemper, tetanus, parvo virus and numerous other illnesses in cats, dogs and countless other domesticated animals. Cats now have a treatment for Feline Leukemia. It's obvious that animal research benefits all living species and that we are all able to live longer, healthier, happier lives because of it.

I couldn't care less if animal research benefits everything under the sun, it's evil, cruel and barbaric and shouldn't happen.

Lovely videos showing beagles setting foot on grass after years in a metal cage.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2067576/Tear-jerking-moment-lab-beagles-sunlight-time-released-cages.html

I was involved in the rescue of the Consort Beagles in 1997 which was a breeding centre that supplied laboratories all over the World. I still have one of the dogs here who is now 15 years old and he has had a life that all dogs deserve, full of fun and happiness which laboratory dogs do not have. Had he not been saved at the eleventh hour he would not have seen his first birthday and would have suffererd pain and deprivation before he was disposed of. For those who think animal testing is justifiable then you should read about the 'Safer Medicines Campaign' then I think you will have to reconsider your opinions. Many people have been maimed or killed by drugs supposedly proven safe in animals. The Government should be putting more money into safer, more reliable non animal based research then we will see better progress in medical research but, sad to say, the vivisection industry is a huge money spinner.

So an animal lover couldn't care less that the lives of millions of animals have benefitted from animal testing.

Makes sense.

Emotion over logic here .

First of all a "puppy farm" by nature is not cruel ,its  a for profit breeding installation ,often the term  puppy farm is all too easily misused ,to instill a picture and narrative of squalor , and mistreatment ,the truth is that these units will be a modern state of the art facility
Just because the animals are then used for testing and research does not make the breeding unit cruel ,this is really an ethics debate. What people are  actually saying is that  all animal breeding is cruel ,from wool to meat production ,if thats your position then fair enough but thats a diff argument , to suggest this facility would be subjecting the animals to cruelty is not correct

It would make more sense to target where these dogs were going and to what they were going to be subjected to ,if they have nothing to hide they should have nothing to fear (love rolling that old chestnut out ).

One thing that does annoy me is Scotland is a leader in animal science and biotech ,But the SNP have a very anti hunting stance on a animal welfare argument .Mike Watson the disgraced labour lord was the man that tabled the anti hunting bill in Scotland ,the bill(like lord watson) was fast tracked in Scotland by a very willing Scottish Parliament  and  quickly taken south of the border and the rest is history ,truth was the man in the street in Scotland did not give a flying **** about foxes or hunting . There was hardly any hunts in Scotland anyway . A cursory glance through the history books show the ordinary  people of Scotland and indeed most parts of the UK are steeped in a an ancient  hunting/fishing/shooting culture,handed down through the generations . It was a set up imo ,maybe thats why the jailed and shamed labour lord tried to burn his fellows  in the  hotel ? who knows he has never offered an excuse for his actions .

Now the SNP are involved in the debate and taking an strong  anti hunting stance but again it is a false flag, a game, a lever ,a  perceived  class / politics war  ,they are trying to take  new labours ground and voters with this pseudo anti hunting rubbish  .There was more ordinary working class people caught up  in the hunting ban than tory toffs  ,UK has a working class with a  rich culture of  hunting/fishing/shooting  ,its all being cleansed in a horribly crass pseudo manor and i would suggest one of new labours biggest mistakes was enacting this unfair legislation on the ordinary  working man ,they wasted something like 700hrs of parly time on it and used the parly act to push it through as they had taken so much money from the animal charities and had went past the point of no return ,a frenzied and sustained attack that the ordinary man in the street hardly had an opinion about .
Was really just retribution for the destruction of the mining and unions ,but it was a revenge that caught many of their own in collateral damage and the fallout from it will rumble on for a long time .

If the SNP were going  to be honest to their word they would not be inviting the worlds biotech and Frankenstein farmers to Scotland and would not be investing in large scale biotech including animal testing  ,but i doubt they would want to talk about that ,dont fit the agenda at all not to mention economics  .Would have a pound on it these puppies are headed north .
Thats where the pressure should be ,the facilities that do the testing ,we should know whats happening in these places ,just like hunting lets see what the people have to say ,i am sure the Scottish people wont be wanting no puppies killed here .

End SNP puppy death camps now imo .

I believe there is a massive sprawling biotech animal science  facility on the outskirts of Edinburgh .
The Bush estate ,near Roslyn and reckon it needs the same scrutiny as what the SNP afford to hunting  ,whats the difference ?

Of course its all politics but when you decide on behalf of the Scottish people whats right and whats wrong you cant then cherry pick can you ?  easy for SNP to oppose summit like foxhunting when it does not actually affect the country but perhaps their animal ethics policy need an airing with a view to potential animal cruelty and abuse for economic purposes ,the worst reason imo .

For what its worth i think this argument is fraught with danger , emotion over logic and prob boils down to where you place animals in relation to mankind ,in the future they will want to clone and grow humanoids from stem cells ,out of test tubes and use them for all sorts ,its a can of worms ,medicine does need tested but some cant accept that ,however in light of hunting legislation i think a debate is only fair .

Are  puppies tortured in Scotland for economic purposes ?

Not cruel!! WTF


http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/462546/Horrifying-BUAV-video-investigation-shows-puppies-kittens-ripped-apart-in-UK-animal-lab

breadnbutter Joined: 29 Aug 06
| Topic/replies: 6,972 | Blogger: breadnbutter's blog
Emotion over logic here .

First of all a "puppy farm" by nature is not cruel

This footage was filmed inside B&K Universal in 2012. It shows the tragic reality of 'life' for these beagles as they struggle to make sense of what's happening to them.


https://www.change.org/p/rt-hon-david-cameron-mp-reverse-the-government-s-decision-to-give-the-go-ahead-for-a-puppy-farm-in-hull-created-with-the-purpose-of-providing-beagle-puppies-to-laboratories-for-animal-testing/u/11571324?tk=4UYvlRhqAtwtxVuCGANxxhcsZFJr_qn-Bh0cuJcvWJM&utm_source=petition_update&utm_medium=email

Take a look and tell me it's not cruel!

It's not graphic but doesn't have to be to be cruel.