Grand National

[redkev]

19 hours ago, Baba Yaga said:

Looks like this animal rising group is just extinction rebellion, same people but under some different branding... 

https://www.animalrising.org/our-history

I personally think all these activists groups are the same people under different umbrellas when the cause fits 

[nebristolred]

4 hours ago, spudski said:

Sadly your post comes across as so high and mighty. 

You have no idea about my eating habits and whether I give a damn. 

You really don't help your argument by assuming someone you don't know, has polar opposite to your views. 

All I've done is give a counter argument. To give some balance. 

I'm sorry spudders. I won't lie the comment about us supposedly missing a glaring fact about getting our food unethically frustrated me. It's something put this way quite a lot, quite honestly I do see it as a nonsense point but I could have put it across more nicely. When I referred to 'you', I always mean it in a generalised sense, not yourself personally, it's how I write but admittedly didn't put that across at all. That's entirely my fault.

That said back to the point, even if I do eat an avocado which has been shipped across the world, the carbon footprint of my overall diet will still be considerably less than that of someone who eats meat once or multiple times a day. It's not a fair argument against vegetarians - that they should be criticised for one or 2 very specific fruits/vegs that they might eat occasionally on the basis that it's bad, when overall a diet including them would still be far better for the planet than one including lots of meat, whether it's locally produced or not.

What you say about the Mediterranean diet certainly is true - more and more research from what I've read is suggesting that the wider the range of plants you eat (that includes everything from spices to vegetables to coffee and chocolate) the higher your gut health and the better your general overall health. That said I think any red meat, locally sourced or not is not going to be good for you, but then who really eats a diet that is 100% health for you? I certainly don't.

4 hours ago, spudski said:

As for the horse racing...we can agree to disagree. I see more good done in the industry than bad. I've seen worse care, from people who just own horses for pleasure in fields or to ride on roads. 

We absolutely will have to disagree. I haven't seen anything to justify the deaths of the 49 horses this year so far in race meetings, particularly when 80%+ of them could have been avoided if we just removed jumps. I really struggle to see how anyone can condone that while also supporting animal rights. It's a direct contradiction.

4 hours ago, spudski said:

I hate cruelty to animals. I find it more abhorrent than when it happens with humans. 

As is this. When people get frustrated at animal abuse, the Zouma case, people harming dogs, but then wilfully eat meat daily, which in many cases involves an animal having an utterly **** life, bred to be unhealthy for us to get more meat from them and then in many cases being either gassed to death or having their throats slit, in very questionable circumstances as to their awareness.

Again, not saying this is you I don't know what you eat, but much (perhaps most?) of the population claim to hate animal abuse while being complicit in it. This is a clear hypocrisy imo.

4 hours ago, spudski said:

As a person living in the comforts of the western world, I wonder how you feel about horses and other animals being used in third world countries to work in poor conditions when transporting and producing the fruit and veg you eat. Or do you just ignore that because it doesn't fit your argument...

I have no issue with that whatsoever. As I've said before, our very existence is an impact on the planet - that's not our fault but it's a fact. We can choose to minimise that or we can choose to worsen it. If I buy some fruit that has come a long way around the world (which I try to avoid by the way) and it takes up 0.5% of my overall diet, it is still making the better decision than if I were to kill a cow for a larger % of my diet, both ethically and for the environment.

4 hours ago, spudski said:

Regarding your Carbon argument. The earth's atmosphere contains approx 0.4%...not even 1%. Plants need 0.2% minimum to survive. Below that they die. The biggest contribution is through burning fossil fuels and deforestation. Deforestation to grow things like palm oil and more fruit and veg. They aren't deforesting to make more land for cattle. That's decreasing already. 

My debate with you is to point out your view isn't so squeeky clean and giving some balance. Both our views are not perfect. 

Once again spudders - if we all ate plants, we would need fewer plants to sustain the food needed for cattle and other animals. Your point backs up my argument, not yours. And fwiw I always avoid palm oil where I can.

I am not squeaky clean, I absolutely don't pretend to be. But I do try my best, and I just think if everyone did a little bit more it would help a lot.

Finally, once again, this is a completely different debate to that of horse racing so it'd be fairer to focus on that, and move this elsewhere, but will see how the topic pans out.

Edited April 16, 2023 by nebristolred

[Super]

It won't be banned but why not see if it can be made safer.

[Daniro]

2 hours ago, spudski said:

Tracing food production from third world countries is actually very hard to do. You pretty much have to look at every distributor and where it sources its production from.

What we have to remember is the majority of the world has a completely different outlook on using animals in food transport and production. 

Then you have the human Labour to take into account. 

If you looked into it, as a population in this country, we are reliant on countries to provide cheap food and clothing, products, that if we witnessed it first hand, would be appalled. Yet if you took it away, we simply wouldn't be able to economically survive, unless we changed our habits completely. And became less about consuming and wasting. 

It's not just third world. Take into account your high end quality olive oils and such like. Small ' boutique ' suppliers...with very small output. Many still use ' traditional' methods which include animals in the work force. Milling, pressing, ploughing etc etc. 

I've seen it first hand in rural Greece and Turkey. Small businesses. 

We avoid the Supermarkets because we think they are the worst, but the boutique can be just as bad if not worse, as they don't have the manual resources. 

 

 

 

"For all those berating horse racing...refuse to eat your food produced in such ways. Otherwise you don't have an argument. "

 

Thanks for your response.  I guess I was expecting you had some specific examples of food products  to avoid for those of us with newly discovered scruples about horse racing deaths, given your exhortation that we "don't have an argument" unless we do.    I'm sure we've all witnessed or at least heard about abuse of animals all over the world, including in the UK and Ireland (they've found horse meat in the great British burger not so long ago) but I'm not yet convinced by the conflation of the purported cruelty of horse racing (in particular jumping a la Grand National) with food production in less developed countries .    

 

 

[nebristolred]

24 minutes ago, Super said:

It won't be banned but why not see if it can be made safer.

Definitely As I said above, 49 deaths so far this year from horse racing. If you extrapolate that over a year it's potentially 150. If you were to remove jumps, statistically it would remove 88% of the deaths - so over a year that makes 20 horse deaths rather than 150.

I really don't see how anyone can justify the existence of jumps and a subsequent 130 extra deaths. It might be a bit more fun, but is that a fair risk? I really don't think so.

[Kid in the Riot]

5 hours ago, spudski said:

They've reduced the whip use to 6/7 times in a race. I personally would like to see the whip banned in encouraging, but it's necessary for use in guiding the horse. The industry isn't perfect. I'm not perfect. The industry pros far outway the cons imo. In the same way I could argue with yourself on having the higher moral ground, but you support boxing and martial arts. Which I don't. So neither of us are perfect imo. 

As I've pointed out...many horses injure themselves and die in fields, naturally, they also have the same problems when ridden on roads or fields for fun. 

Like I've pointed out...many animals including horses are used as working animals to help produce and transport food in third world countries. Food that you and me eat...with very little thought. Often beaten and kept in poor conditions. We don't see it here...so it's easy to ignore. 

Bare in mind the world's population and how many still live in poverty, and still use animals as modes of transport and working in production of food and manufacture. Like we as a nation did for centuries. 

Do you refuse to eat the food produced by such methods? 

Thanks...I'm just trying to give some balance. None of us are perfect. 

You can't seriously be comparing humans imposing suffering on horses to two higher primates choosing to get in a ring and fight each other? That's nuts. 

What I'm getting from your observations is that essentially you are willing to overlook the suffering of the horses for your wider enjoyment of the sport. 

No-one that truly finds animal cruelty "abhorrent" would watch and/or financially support animal cruelty. That surely goes without saying. 

Anyone that tuned in to watch the National yesterday knew they were going to watch 40 horses getting whipped, and possibly some might die or get badly injured. Yet they were willing to overlook this cruelty because of the wider excitement they get from watching the race, and usually the "buzz" of (mostly) losing their money.

That's the truth, and people should try and be more honest with themselves. 

[spudski]

2 hours ago, nebristolred said:

I'm sorry spudders. I won't lie the comment about us supposedly missing a glaring fact about getting our food unethically frustrated me. It's something put this way quite a lot, quite honestly I do see it as a nonsense point but I could have put it across more nicely. When I referred to 'you', I always mean it in a generalised sense, not yourself personally, it's how I write but admittedly didn't put that across at all. That's entirely my fault.

That said back to the point, even if I do eat an avocado which has been shipped across the world, the carbon footprint of my overall diet will still be considerably less than that of someone who eats meat once or multiple times a day. It's not a fair argument against vegetarians - that they should be criticised for one or 2 very specific fruits/vegs that they might eat occasionally on the basis that it's bad, when overall a diet including them would still be far better for the planet than one including lots of meat, whether it's locally produced or not.

What you say about the Mediterranean diet certainly is true - more and more research from what I've read is suggesting that the wider the range of plants you eat (that includes everything from spices to vegetables to coffee and chocolate) the higher your gut health and the better your general overall health. That said I think any red meat, locally sourced or not is not going to be good for you, but then who really eats a diet that is 100% health for you? I certainly don't.

We absolutely will have to disagree. I haven't seen anything to justify the deaths of the 49 horses this year so far in race meetings, particularly when 80%+ of them could have been avoided if we just removed jumps. I really struggle to see how anyone can condone that while also supporting animal rights. It's a direct contradiction.

As is this. When people get frustrated at animal abuse, the Zouma case, people harming dogs, but then wilfully eat meat daily, which in many cases involves an animal having an utterly **** life, bred to be unhealthy for us to get more meat from them and then in many cases being either gassed to death or having their throats slit, in very questionable circumstances as to their awareness.

Again, not saying this is you I don't know what you eat, but much (perhaps most?) of the population claim to hate animal abuse while being complicit in it. This is a clear hypocrisy imo.

I have no issue with that whatsoever. As I've said before, our very existence is an impact on the planet - that's not our fault but it's a fact. We can choose to minimise that or we can choose to worsen it. If I buy some fruit that has come a long way around the world (which I try to avoid by the way) and it takes up 0.5% of my overall diet, it is still making the better decision than if I were to kill a cow for a larger % of my diet, both ethically and for the environment.

Once again spudders - if we all ate plants, we would need fewer plants to sustain the food needed for cattle and other animals. Your point backs up my argument, not yours. And fwiw I always avoid palm oil where I can.

I am not squeaky clean, I absolutely don't pretend to be. But I do try my best, and I just think if everyone did a little bit more it would help a lot.

Finally, once again, this is a completely different debate to that of horse racing so it'd be fairer to focus on that, and move this elsewhere, but will see how the topic pans out.

I'm not going to debate anymore...it's a pointless exercise. I'm not going to convince you in seeing a balanced view. 

I get the opinion you've never visited a yard or have any experience with looking after horses. This is generally the case with most apposed. Maybe visit a yard, speak to the owners and get a balanced view. 

Re diet and sustainability. 

My view is very alternate compared to most. 

This is my hope for the future. And one I'd be happy to embrace. 

https://www.selfsufficienthomesteading.com/self-sufficiency/how-much-land-do-you-need-to-be-self-sufficient/

[spudski]

1 hour ago, Kid in the Riot said:

You can't seriously be comparing humans imposing suffering on horses to two higher primates choosing to get in a ring and fight each other? That's nuts. 

What I'm getting from your observations is that essentially you are willing to overlook the suffering of the horses for your wider enjoyment of the sport. 

No-one that truly finds animal cruelty "abhorrent" would watch and/or financially support animal cruelty. That surely goes without saying. 

Anyone that tuned in to watch the National yesterday knew they were going to watch 40 horses getting whipped, and possibly some might die or get badly injured. Yet they were willing to overlook this cruelty because of the wider excitement they get from watching the race, and usually the "buzz" of (mostly) losing their money.

That's the truth, and people should try and be more honest with themselves. 

Utter madness. 

You'll look down on someone for seeing both sides of the argument, yet put yourself in an ivory tower for having anti horse racing views...yet in the same breath think it's normal for humans to choose to beat the crap out of one another...injure, kill, disable, brain damage, all in the name of sport, where people make £ millions for that pleasure...whilst a baying crowd encourage their favourite to inflict as much damage to another human...enjoying watching it, gaining pleasure from it, excited by it. 

Mate...that's ****** up reasoning. 

[Kid in the Riot]

2 hours ago, spudski said:

Utter madness. 

You'll look down on someone for seeing both sides of the argument, yet put yourself in an ivory tower for having anti horse racing views...yet in the same breath think it's normal for humans to choose to beat the crap out of one another...injure, kill, disable, brain damage, all in the name of sport, where people make £ millions for that pleasure...whilst a baying crowd encourage their favourite to inflict as much damage to another human...enjoying watching it, gaining pleasure from it, excited by it. 

Mate...that's ****** up reasoning. 

It seems you no longer want to engage with the issue at hand; animal cruelty. Which is fine... 

[wayne allisons tongues]

If people are against Jump racing, are they also against Show Jumping, 3 day eventing, equestrian, fox hunting and point to point racing as a few examples. All use horses in sport that are trained, bred for these sports. Why is nobody against these events or protesting at them. 

[Rob k]

58 minutes ago, wayne allisons tongues said:

If people are against Jump racing, are they also against Show Jumping, 3 day eventing, equestrian, fox hunting and point to point racing as a few examples. All use horses in sport that are trained, bred for these sports. Why is nobody against these events or protesting at them. 

Some interesting points for and against. i do wonder how far these protesters will go, will they protest outside people’s homes that keep rabbits and hamsters in cruel cages? Should humans be banned from keeping dogs seeing as there’s 1000s abandoned and neglected every year? I don’t see protesters on busy roads protesting against cat owners who think it’s fine keep one as a pet near a busy road. What about people who keep fish and can’t keep them alive in their tanks? How far do you go? 

Edited April 16, 2023 by Rob k

[nebristolred]

48 minutes ago, wayne allisons tongues said:

If people are against Jump racing, are they also against Show Jumping, 3 day eventing, equestrian, fox hunting and point to point racing as a few examples. All use horses in sport that are trained, bred for these sports. Why is nobody against these events or protesting at them. 

To be honest, yes. We should probably stop using animals for our entertainment, and we should probably stop pretending that what we’re doing is what they want.

And out of the examples you used, yes, absolutely ****ing ban fox hunting. Barbaric, horrendous ‘sport’, full of utter weirdos.

12 minutes ago, Rob k said:

Some interesting points for and against. i do wonder how far these protesters will go, will they protest outside people’s homes that keep rabbits and hamsters in cruel cages? Should humans be banned from keeping dogs seeing as there’s 1000s abandoned and neglected every year? I don’t see protesters on busy rides protesting agains cat owners who think it’s fine keep one as a pet near busy roads? What about people who keep fish and can’t keep them alive in their tanks? How far do you go? 

It’s a fair point but once again, ‘protestors are protesting against X but not Y’ isn’t really a decent argument imo, they’re doing something which is better than nothing.

I would be absolutely for some sort of wider education of people when it comes to keeping pets. So many people think that what they’re doing is healthy and nice for their pets and in so many instances what they’re doing is pretty horrendous. I have one friend who always calls out dog walkers when they’re yanking their leads around their necks or not treating them right. It’s not what I’d do, but honestly, I used to have a dog and had no idea that some of what I did was actually really harmful and horrible to the dog.

I absolutely agree with your sentiment but if anything I think it just proves that more awareness needs raising, not the other way around.

[spudski]

1 hour ago, Kid in the Riot said:

It seems you no longer want to engage with the issue at hand; animal cruelty. Which is fine... 

We're all animals...animal cruelty includes boxing and martial arts. 

You say we are the more intelligent species. 

Horse racing is a sport where the risks in doing so may lead to injury or death. Not the aim. 

Boxing and martial arts is purely about inflicting as much hurt and damage to the opponent. That's the aim...not the by product. 

 

 

 

[nebristolred]

1 minute ago, spudski said:

We're all animals...animal cruelty includes boxing and martial arts. 

You say we are the more intelligent species. 

Horse racing is a sport where the risks in doing so may lead to injury or death. Not the aim. 

Boxing and martial arts is purely about inflicting as much hurt and damage to the opponent. That's the aim...not the by product. 

 

 

 

This again…. There is no comparison - humans volunteer themselves, it is their decision.

When was the last time you had a response from a horse that wanted to race?

[Slacker]

1 minute ago, spudski said:

We're all animals...animal cruelty includes boxing and martial arts. 

You say we are the more intelligent species. 

Horse racing is a sport where the risks in doing so may lead to injury or death. Not the aim. 

Boxing and martial arts is purely about inflicting as much hurt and damage to the opponent. That's the aim...not the by product. 

 

 

 

Why are you constantly ignoring the entire concept of consent?

[Rob k]

3 minutes ago, Slacker said:

Why are you constantly ignoring the entire concept of consent?

If a horse really didn’t want to jump a fence it wouldn’t, it refuses, as seen yesterday when a jockey went flying over a fence as the horse didn’t fancy it. 

[spudski]

1 minute ago, nebristolred said:

This again…. There is no comparison - humans volunteer themselves, it is their decision.

When was the last time you had a response from a horse that wanted to race?

Wild horses race one another all the time. Jump, gallop, frollic. 

With respect...you may be against horse racing in principle, but it's obvious from your comments you know nothing about horses or spent any time around them, or spoken to people who care for them. 

3 minutes ago, Slacker said:

Why are you constantly ignoring the entire concept of consent?

Because ' consent' is a misplaced concept. We consent to murder one another if a government calls it war. Consent to kill someone else or try to damage them on purpose...under a name ' war or sport'...makes it alright? But if I consent to fight with you in the street...we'd both get arrested. 

You see how stupid we are as humans. 

[Kid in the Riot]

6 minutes ago, spudski said:

You say we are the more intelligent species. 

That assertion is certainly being challenged by some of the arguments being presented on this thread.

[Slacker]

Just now, Rob k said:

If a horse really didn’t want to jump a fence it wouldn’t, it refuses, as seen yesterday when a jockey went flying over a fence as the horse didn’t fancy it. 

I meant the comparison between horses being forced to race/jump,and adults choosing to fight each other Rob.In answer to your question, I have no idea what goes through a horses mind as it approaches a fence.Just because it does what it has been trained to do doesn't necessarily mean that is what it wants to do.

[spudski]

2 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

That assertion is certainly being challenged by some of the arguments being presented on this thread.

I agree....I bow down to your superior knowledge on the subject. 

[Slacker]

5 minutes ago, spudski said:

Wild horses race one another all the time. Jump, gallop, frollic. 

With respect...you may be against horse racing in principle, but it's obvious from your comments you know nothing about horses or spent any time around them, or spoken to people who care for them. 

Because ' consent' is a misplaced concept. We consent to murder one another if a government calls it war. Consent to kill someone else or try to damage them on purpose...under a name ' war or sport'...makes it alright? But if I consent to fight with you in the street...we'd both get arrested. 

You see how stupid we are as humans. 

You seem to be deliberately trying to muddy the waters.You are constantly going off on tangents.The thread is about The Grand National and horse welfare and you just keep trying to blindside it with other "facts".

[spudski]

1 minute ago, Slacker said:

You seem to be deliberately trying to muddy the waters.You are constantly going off on tangents.The thread is about The Grand National and horse welfare and you just keep trying to blindside it with other "facts".

Have you been to a stable yard, spoken to owners, trainers, jockeys, the lads and lasses that look after the horses daily. The vets that care for them? Do you understand horses and their natural behaviour? A natural behaviour that is copied in the wild, paddocks and on the course. 

[PHILINFRANCE]

5 hours ago, Daniro said:

 I guess I was expecting you had some specific examples of food products  to avoid for those of us with newly discovered scruples about horse racing deaths, given your exhortation that we "don't have an argument" unless we do.    I'm sure we've all witnessed or at least heard about abuse of animals all over the world, including in the UK and Ireland (they've found horse meat in the great British burger not so long ago) but I'm not yet convinced by the conflation of the purported cruelty of horse racing (in particular jumping a la Grand National) with food production in less developed countries .    

 

 

Whilst I agree that it is entirely wrong to put horse meat in a ‘beef burger’ without announcing it, there is absolutely nothing wrong with eating horse meat, per se.

On occasions, generally when my wife is away and when I fancy a decent steak, I treat myself to a horse fillet.

It is a little more expensive than normal beef, but truly a slightly gamely delicacy.

[Slacker]

9 minutes ago, spudski said:

Have you been to a stable yard, spoken to owners, trainers, jockeys, the lads and lasses that look after the horses daily. The vets that care for them? Do you understand horses and their natural behaviour? A natural behaviour that is copied in the wild, paddocks and on the course. 

Nope.I pointed out clearly in my first response to this thread that I know absolutely nothing about horses or horse racing.In all honesty though if I was to engage with stable owners,trainers etc,I wouldn’t particularly expect a warts and all account.

[PHILINFRANCE]

39 minutes ago, nebristolred said:

I would be absolutely for some sort of wider education of people when it comes to keeping pets. So many people think that what they’re doing is healthy and nice for their pets and in so many instances what they’re doing is pretty horrendous. I have one friend who always calls out dog walkers when they’re yanking their leads around their necks or not treating them right. It’s not what I’d do, but honestly, I used to have a dog and had no idea that some of what I did was actually really harmful and horrible to the dog.

I agree totally with your point about education and trying to teach people what is harmful to dogs.

When I was a young boy, we had a dog as a family pet; a mongrel that was part sheepdog, part golden retriever and probably a few other breeds as well.

She was extremely well behaved and much loved and well treated by our entire family.

She had free range of our garden (she would sleep inside the house at night) and would be walked at least twice a day, down to the local park where, if circumstances allowed, her lead would be removed and, again, she would run free, returning to heel if she was called.

Her collar, though, was what was called a ‘choke collar’, something that worked just as it’s name suggests.

If we were walking her, and she moved as if to chase a cat, we would pull on the lead and the collar would constrict, thus stopping her in her tracks.

Looking back, such a collar seems extremely cruel, and I imagine they are now banned, but they were quite acceptable back then.

Oh, and as I mentioned, our dog was loveable, well behaved and very affectionate.

[spudski]

1 minute ago, Slacker said:

Nope.I pointed out clearly in my first response to this thread that I know absolutely nothing about horses or horse racing.In all honesty though if I was to engage with stable owners,trainers etc,I wouldn’t particularly expect a warts and all account.

And that's the problem, people against it don't want to engage. They want to complain from afar, without knowing any facts. 

Protestors have been offered to engage with the industry, but decline. 

Perhaps if they sat down and engaged, there would be better understanding from both sides. 

Complaining about something without knowing anything on the subject is a bit disingenuous don't you think? 

Quote

Running and jumping comes naturally to horses, and we see them doing both those things in the wild. It’s also interesting to note that when a horse unseats its rider during a race, it will continue to run and jump with the other horses.

We understand and respect that some people have concerns over animals being used in sport. That’s why we are committed to ensuring that the highest levels of animal care and welfare exist in British racing.

Roly Owers, chief executive of World Horse Welfare, states that his organisation “does not accept the claim that horses are unwilling participants in sport. The notion that sport is bad for horses needs to be challenged”.

Trainers and jockeys work closely with horses every day, from providing for their basic needs to conducting their training. They develop incredibly strong bonds with the horses and a deep understanding of their traits and moods. There is anecdotal evidence from jockeys that they can recognise physical and behavioural traits that signal the needs and desires of the horse.

Without horseracing there would be no thoroughbred racehorse. The care and the support structures that the 14,000 horses in training at any one time receive are superior to those available to almost all other domesticated animals. As a result, racing brings far more life to the horse population than it takes away. And the quality of those lives is astonishingly high.

It’s important to note that if a horse does not want to race, it won’t, and very occasionally we see a horse plant its feet and refuse to move. No horse can be made to race against its will. In the overwhelming majority of cases, horses happily take part in a race.

Follow BHAHorseracing

[spudski]

12 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

I agree totally with your point about education and trying to teach people what is harmful to dogs.

When I was a young boy, we had a dog as a family pet; a mongrel that was part sheepdog, part golden retriever and probably a few other breeds as well.

She was extremely well behaved and much loved and well treated by our entire family.

She had free range of our garden (she would sleep inside the house at night) and would be walked at least twice a day, down to the local park where, if circumstances allowed, her lead would be removed and, again, she would run free, returning to heel if she was called.

Her collar, though, was what was called a ‘choke collar’, something that worked just as it’s name suggests.

If we were walking her, and she moved as if to chase a cat, we would pull on the lead and the collar would constrict, thus stopping her in her tracks.

Looking back, such a collar seems extremely cruel, and I imagine they are now banned, but they were quite acceptable back then.

Oh, and as I mentioned, our dog was loveable, well behaved and very affectionate.

The Grand National should be the least of people's worries when you look at these figures regarding pet dog ownership. 

https://www.directlinegroup.co.uk/en/news/brand-news/2017/dog-fights---64-000-canines-die-in-12-months.html

[Daniro]

42 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

Whilst I agree that it is entirely wrong to put horse meat in a ‘beef burger’ without announcing it, there is absolutely nothing wrong with eating horse meat, per se.

On occasions, generally when my wife is away and when I fancy a decent steak, I treat myself to a horse fillet.

It is a little more expensive than normal beef, but truly a slightly gamely delicacy.

Yes - I understand your point and only the other day was talking to my neighbour who had horse steak while in Italy and enjoyed it.   I guess if you eat meat, then there's no logical reason to refuse horse.   I was, as you spotted, thinking of putting it in burgers without declaring it, but in retrospect, it's not related to the topic of the Grand National.    Mind you,  neither are a lot of points being made on this thread!    

[Slacker]

19 minutes ago, spudski said:

The Grand National should be the least of people's worries when you look at these figures regarding pet dog ownership. 

https://www.directlinegroup.co.uk/en/news/brand-news/2017/dog-fights---64-000-canines-die-in-12-months.html

And again the deflection. But who knows,if you spoke to the owners of the dogs and organisers of the fights,they might tell you that dogs fight in the wild and that they love and look after their dogs.After all,why would they lie?

[spudski]

7 minutes ago, Slacker said:

And again the deflection. But who knows,if you spoke to the owners of the dogs and organisers of the fights,they might tell you that dogs fight in the wild and that they love and look after their dogs.After all,why would they lie?

Mate I answered you properly in a previous post which you've chosen to ignore. 

You've also completely misread or just glanced at the link I posted. That is not organised fights...but injuries and deaths to pets. 

I feel you are just being flippant now.