Thanks for the update on this story. The lady deserves a medal, not prosecution.
The negative article you quoted above, Catherine, does contain this misleading point, however:
"I’ve even seen people bite into a double-bacon-burger with cheese while tweeting their outrage."
I seriously doubt the veracity of this statement, unless the writer was in a fast-food restaurant at that exact moment and was secretly glancing over the shoulder of someone else tweeting - possibly itself also illegal. I think that the writer is just trying to "make a point": that it is illogical to worry about giving water to pigs when you are willing for those same animals to be killed a short while afterwards, in a cruel and frightening environment (the slaughter house).
The moral integrity of the lady who gave water to the pigs is not in any doubt. She does not eat meat. But in any case, even in the case of tweeters who do eat meat, their argument is not invalid. It is perfectly reasonable to want to reduce suffering prior to slaughter. In just the same way, I do not have a problem with meat eaters who campaign to abolish factory farming. Any reduction in suffering is progress.
I hope that the jury will find her not guilty (giving water is not mischief; it is compassion). This should then be followed by a claim for false arrest.
The negative article you quoted above, Catherine, does contain this misleading point, however:
"I’ve even seen people bite into a double-bacon-burger with cheese while tweeting their outrage."
I seriously doubt the veracity of this statement, unless the writer was in a fast-food restaurant at that exact moment and was secretly glancing over the shoulder of someone else tweeting - possibly itself also illegal. I think that the writer is just trying to "make a point": that it is illogical to worry about giving water to pigs when you are willing for those same animals to be killed a short while afterwards, in a cruel and frightening environment (the slaughter house).
The moral integrity of the lady who gave water to the pigs is not in any doubt. She does not eat meat. But in any case, even in the case of tweeters who do eat meat, their argument is not invalid. It is perfectly reasonable to want to reduce suffering prior to slaughter. In just the same way, I do not have a problem with meat eaters who campaign to abolish factory farming. Any reduction in suffering is progress.
I hope that the jury will find her not guilty (giving water is not mischief; it is compassion). This should then be followed by a claim for false arrest.
