Several years ago we moved to the United Kingdom from the mid-west in the United States finally settling in the north of England. When we arrived, we did not know any Americans and it was only a few years later did we start to meet Americans. The below advice is broad sweeping general advice for anyone planning to move to the United Kingdom. It can be read as a whole or by sections.
Ask Yourself, Why?
It is not possible to show up in the United Kingdom and start legally living here. Living in the United Kingdom takes planning and preparation. Your starting point is asking why do I want to move?
Wanting to live where Shakespeare or Churchill came from and experience another culture that goes back 1,000 years is not good enough. You will be moving away from family, friends, and making a life for yourself in another country. In the UK you will need to find a job, housing, and if you have children a good school. If you have very conservative political leaning, British culture may be overwhelming. Regardless, it is a massively big change and it is a major life stressor. Moving to the United Kingdom is something that will disrupt your life and possibly create division in your family. If you cannot understand your reason then no one else will.
One common reason, I find people move to the United Kingdom they marry someone from here. Their story follows a very typical pattern. Romance blooms and they marry. What is more romantic and beautiful?
I have met a few Americans who meet someone online. They exchange pleasantries, and typically the American will fly over for a visit. They will then fly a few more times to the United Kingdom to meet the person they met online. After a few, jet setting visits they become engaged and apply for a spousal visa. The visa gets approved and soon they are in the United Kingdom. It sounds quite like a fairytale romance set in modern times. What can be purer than meeting the person of your dreams and having technology unite you?
From my experience, those who meet the spouse online and once the excitement of settling in the United Kingdom wears off, many tend to become depressed and angry. I am not saying this is true for all online romances and I am not necessarily saying this true for most online romance. However, from those that I have spoken with a reason for this I believe relates to them becoming isolated from family in the United States because they do not have the money to fly back for periodic visits.
Flying to the United States
Flying to the United States is not cheap. A ticket from a major airport in the United Kingdom to the United States varies greatly. The cheapest for me was £350 per/person during the banking collapse. Average, for me, run around £425 – £525 per person. Highest I have seen is around the holidays and it can run between £650 – £1,200 per person for economy purchased 8 – 12 weeks in advance. Unless you are making at least £25,000 – £30,000 outside of London and outside of the Home Counties you may find expenses keep you from flying back on a regular basis.
Recently I have been asked to support a petition calling for the banning for Kosher and Halal slaughter in the UK that is found on a petition site. Since I do not want to give the individual free publicity for the petition, I am not listing here and I believe, such a petition very disturbing.
For those who support a ban, I believe, do so with malice in their hearts. I further believe a calling for a such a ban is both anti-Semitic and is Islamaphobic. Such a ban, I believe, it violates: Article 8 and 9 of the Human Rights Act, United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights Articles: 12 and 18 and Equality Act.
Banning Ritual Slaughter Equates to Anti-Semitism
So why do I believe banning Kosher and Hala slaughter is wrong? I will state I am more familiar with Kosher slaughter and Judaism than Islam. So, my statement will be from a Jewish perspective. However, my statement can be equally applied to Halah slaughter and Islam. Next, for this statement, I am not going to digress about the differences between Kosher and Halal slaughter. Plus I am not going into defining anti-Semitism and then going into a fully explanation as to why banning Kosher slaughter is anti-Semitism. Instead, I will state, denying a group of people to practice their religion that is acceptable in other parts of the world is wrong and amounts to anti-Semitism. Furthermore, by calling for such a ban demonstrates ignorance, it demonstrates a complete lack of understanding and it demonstrates hate.
I believe banning Hala and Kosher slaughter at is denying non-Christians their right to practice their religion without interference from the government and it is forcing a religion, Christianity, upon them. This raises another question for me? How come those seeking to ban Kosher and Hala slaughter do not also seek to ban Bali and Jhatka religious slaughter too? To be fully compliant with the Equality Act, I believe, the petition should call for the ban of all religious slaughter. The answer is simple, it is not about banning all religious slaughter but something much more troubling. Any special interest or political party that pushes for a ban, I believe, does so from an anti-Semitic perspective. Why do I believe this?
If There is No Anti-Semitism Then How Come the Petition Does Not Call for a Ban on All Animal Slaughter?
Let me ask the question if there is no anti-Semitism then why push for banning Kosher instead of pushing for an outright ban on slaughtering of all animals? Especially when Kosher slaughter has very strict rules for the slaughter that protects the animal for it to be considered Kosher and Kosher slaughter is more humane than non-Kosher slaughter? If the petition is about really about animal rights and protecting the animal then why single out Jews and Muslims?
I do not believe any petition calling for the banning of Kosher of Hala slaughter is about animal welfare. Instead, pushing for such a ban is very reminiscent of 1290 Britain under the Edict of Expulsion from Edward 1, reminiscent of America under Jim Crow laws, and the Holocaust under Nazi Germany.
Ban Denies Basic Human Rights by Creating a “Separate But Equal” Society
Simply put, pushing for a ban denies a group of people their human rights and creates a “separate but equal,” segregated society. Denying a group of people their right to religious slaughter meat when other Western nations still protect their right is regressive. It creates a segregated society where some can practice their religion while others are denied their right to freely practice their religion. Furthermore, it promotes state sponsored Christianity at the cost of religious freedom for all and takes away some freedom.
AAR Campaign is about Uniting Not Dividing
My campaign, AAR – Justice for Chunky, is about making Britain safer and it is about uniting this country. It is not dividing the country along geographical, religious, or political ideological lines. Instead, I seek to unite people, respect their rights, and bring about a solution that works for all. I believe banning Kosher slaughter is anti-Semitc and denies a group of people their right to freely practice their relition in the country when other countries allow Kosher religious slaughter.
Finally, I want to remind the Green Party that a part of my condition for working with them was the animal abuse register will not be used to ban religious slaughter. It is my hope the Green Party continues to respect my wish and it is not behind any of the petitions I am seeing.
In Britain it is estimated approximately 50% of households have a pet. However, those in the rental section, see a pet as mere property. Whereby a pet is something that can be disposed when the situation requires it. Even though the tenant may have given proper notice of having a pet to the landlord. The landlord may use the pet as the excuse for not being able to re-home family when re-homing is required in an effort to avoid their obligation to the family. Sadly, the landlord does not realise the emotional bond that is formed and ignores the benefits a pet provides. The benefits a pet provides is very much the same benefits belonging to family provides. Time has come for a change to view pets as members of the family and a family must be re-home then the focus must be Keeping Families Together.
A Pet Is Not Property But A Member Of The Family
Keeping Families Together means, a pet is not a mere piece of property but a member of the family. A pet adds meaning to our lives, keep us healthy, and most of all they do not judge us. By having a pet, adds years to life and keeps us emotionally healthy. Our world will be worse without having a pet.
Keeping Families Together Means Less Abandoned Pets
Splitting a family a part, especially when it is not the family’s fault, is unfair. It causes them unnecessary emotional grief and compounds any grief they may be experiencing. Furthermore it means the family has a tough choice, during a time of undue emotional stress, to be re-homed or keep a member of their family. No one should have to face splitting their family in order to have housing.
Time For Legislative Reform
Time has come for legislative reform to strengthen the laws regarding families with pets. Families, who have given proper notice of having pet should not face making a tough decision of splitting their family. Instead landlords, public and private, must be forced to re-home families with pets or face legal penalties for non-compliance.
Please sign our petition calling for legislative reform so no family has to split-up through no fault of their own. With your support, Brighter Tomorrow can make a brighter tomorrow for those who rent and have a pet.
Does Stereotypes still exist in 2017? What is a stereotype? Does having a stereotype serve a purpose? Equality Act, Human Rights Act, and other legislation means stereotypes do not exist?
Speaking with people, either on social media or in person, about the animal abuse register I can easily say in 2017 stereotypes still exist. I am writing this article in order to raise an awareness and challenge the ideas held. Furthermore, I believe the below stereotypes are hurting the movement for the animal abuse register. In this article, I am going to explore how stereotypes are hurting the animal abuse register cause and what can be done to fix it?
Definition of Stereotype
Before, speaking about how stereotypes impact the animal abuse register. It is important to define stereotype. At its core, a stereotype is a set of rules we use to interact with our world. It can protect us and give us guidance on how to respond. Nonetheless, using stereotypes can have negative consequences.
History provides many examples of the negative consequences of stereotypes. An extreme example are the Jim Crow laws that defines separate but equal (see, Plessey v Ferguson). Jim Crow laws are laws passed by Southern States during the Reconstruction period in post Civil War America leading to segregation of African Americans. It was not until post-WWII American did the seed of change take root leading to the civil rights marches and Supreme Court decisions like Brown v Topeka Board of Education which eventually led improving civil rights for all.
It goes without saying Jim Crow laws are discrimination. Nonetheless, for discrimination to occur the must be a basis. I believe that basis is having a stereotype. Without challenging stereotypes they can become barrier to progress and ultimately hurt society. Below are four stereotypes people hold about supporters of the animal abuse register.
Four Stereotypes Hurting Animal Abuse Register
1) Activism is Extremism
First thing to remember, those who support the register are animal rights activists. In my opinion there is nothing wrong being an activist. An activist, in my opinion, means someone who has passion about a cause and is willing to speak for it. However, the term activist, in media shows the extreme. Whereby, people taking their support of a cause to the point the individual is willing invoke violence. This leads people to link activism with extremism.
2) All Animal Rights Supporters are Vegans
It is important to realise, there is nothing wrong with being a vegan. Nonetheless, it is not correct to believe all animal abuse register supporters are vegans.
3) Vegans are the Only Ones who can speak about Animal Abuse
A point often overlooked, statistically about 0.8% of the UK population is vegan. This is a very small number that lacks an ability to influence the wider population. So why does this matter? I will tell you. The only time I experience exclusion is when talking about the register with a vegan. Exclusion means, being excluded not because of the experience you can contribute but because you behaviour does not mirror their behaviour. Granted this sounds a lot like playground behaviour but sadly, it is alive in the UK today. It is a barrier attitude whereby either I must become a vegan before my views can be accepted and can advocate for the register. Such a position is discriminatory like the Jim Crow laws. What is the purpose of exclusion? It is not helping to progress the register.
In comparison, from interacting with my supporters, I strongly believe the clear majority are not vegans. If we apply the 0.8% rule to my petition and assume 600,000 signatures. Then it means only 4800 out of 600,000 are vegans or approximately 595,200 are not vegans.
Are Vegans Hurting the Animal Abuse Register Movement?
I struggle to decide what stereotype is more damaging: activism is extremism or vegans are the only one who can speak about animal abuse. In my honest opinion, I believe this stereotype is more damaging. Why? Because it is exclusionary by believing 99.2% of the UK population cannot speak for animal cruelty because they are not vegans. Finally I believe this attitude is damaging because vegans are missing an opportunity to reach out to others to bring about a necessary change. In my opinion it is not social justice but discrimination being masked by an ideology.
4) All Animals Abuse Register Supporters Believe All Animals Are Created Equally
All Animals Must Be Protected from Cruelty
I do not believe animals should go without protection from animal cruelty. Nonetheless it is important to realise, as a society we value animals differently. I believe there are three broad categories: service animals, livestock, and wild. Each has value, worth, and importance. Furthermore, I believe, when we look deep inside of ourselves, I believe, we want to believe we see animals having the same value. However, I believe there is a disconnect between our desire and our actions.
Not All Animals Are Created Equally
I challenge you. The next time you travel look at your surroundings. On the bus, you may see a seeing eye dog. Likewise, at the airport you may see a dog sniffing for drugs, bombs, or illegal food. Maybe someone has a therapy animal with them or a helper monkey. Likewise, police and military uses dogs too. Even your neighbours will have a dog, cat, parrot; or hamster. You will never see a person walking a badger, pig, or their pet cow in the park. Britain is a nation of pet owners.
Media Does Not Treat Animal Abuse Equally
Media reflects the values a society holds. Next time when reading the paper, look for someone abusing their pet fish or hurting a wild mouse caught in a mouse trap? I am willing to bet, you more likely to find as story about someone hurting a dog or a cat than a pet fish.
Reality of Enforcement: It Costs Money
From my experience I believe there is a disconnect between idealism and practicality. There is a lot of idealism to save everything but there is almost no talk on how do you afford it? To answer this, hink about the larger picture. If someone asks you, “do you want me to protect your dog, a cow, or a badger?” The question may sound ridiculous and your reaction maybe your dog. Think, if you want to protect all three, how will you respond? Protecting an animal from cruelty costs money and it requires people to do it. Where does the time and money come from to pay for:
Maintenance of vehicles
Training / support
How do you pay for it? In an ideal world, all animals are equal and receive equal protection. Under real-world circumstances there are limitations. Meaning, something must be given priority over something else. I believe, the reason for so much attention in the media regarding animal cruelty is the result of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 not differentiating between different types of animals. Instead the penalty for cruelty to a dog is the same for a badger or a cow. Is that fair?
5) All Supporters of the Animal Abuse Register are Progressive
There is a stereotype anyone supporting the register holds a progressive ideology or should subscribe to it. Simply put we are a homogeneous group sharing similar beliefs. From my contact with my supporters I do not believe this is true. Instead I believe, among my supporters the is a yearning for longer sentencing without rehabilitation and a need to protect the family pet from abuse. This goes very much against the idea of rehabilitation or believing the Animal Welfare 2006 is the perfect solution for solving animal cruelty. In my honest opinion, I do not believe those who support the animal abuse register are a homogeneous group. Instead we are a very diverse group with varying political opinions.
Animal Abuse Register is not an Ideology but a Movement
My vision for the animal abuse register is not about advocating for or against a vegan lifestyle. It is not about conservatism, green, or progressive political ideology. Instead it is a movement about protecting animals from cruelty. The movement is about being realistic about enforcement, cost, and societal values. It is our belief, the best way, with limited resources, is accepting society puts different values on animals. Such as statement may shock you but it is reality. Furthermore, it our belief, those animals that improve lives must receive the most protection. Reason being, cruelty to a service type of animal also impacts its family thereby damaging society.
In conclusion, call it what you want: stereotype, bullying, or discrimination. It is all the same. If the register is to happen then all sides need to work together and put aside stereotypical ideology behind them. Only be working together can we make the register happen and protect all of Britain.
Open Letter to MPs: Animal Abuse Register Can Make Us All Feel Less Vulnerable
The recent ransomware attack on many United Kingdom and world businesses reminded each of us how vulnerable we are. The attack hits us at our core. Reminding us we vulnerable and a lot must be done to make us safer. In the coming days after the general election I am sure MP will begin drafting legislation to address specific vulnerabilities.
Whilst the recent ransomware attack made all of feel vulnerable, it is important no to remember there are many in the United Kingdom who feel the need for justice. The need for justice does not just lie in the recent attack but also in the need for animal abuse register. Animal abuse makes us feel helpless and it shows the worst society has to offer. Many people wrongly believe those who abuse animals do not have an impact on them. They are wrong. Some who abuse animals will go on to harm people. Looking at recent information:
Recent Telegraph article suggests violent crime costs the UK economy £124 billion
According to the ONS in the year ending December 2016 there were 358,786 recorded crimes crimes against person in England and Wales that were domestic abuse related in 2016
By addressing animal abuse you are also addressing another issue and that issue is senseless violence. It is violence that occurs because there is no animal abuse register. Based on statistics from 2016, it appears violent crimes cost the economy a staggering £124 billion to the economy and statistics show the problem is not getting better.
So where does the solution lie? The solution already exists. Having an animal abuse register means individuals who are convicted of violence against an animal are put on a register. This is will help to provide, where appropriate, help for them and in cases of juveniles help for their family. It will also mean savings for the economy because a segment of the criminal population will be on a register. This could provide information to the police to help solve further crimes.
During this time it is easy to lose sight of what matters to voters and focus on the story that grabs the most attention in the media. The Justice for Chunky campaign has nearly 600,000 with the vast majority of signatures coming from the United Kingdom. From what we can analyse, from various sources, it appears most of our supporters
are in the 35 – 65 age range, with most in the 45 – 55 age range. However we do have some support from the 18-25 age group.
comes from middle-class to upper-middle class background
primarily women (65% women – 35% men), though varies
come from all political parties but appear to favour more moderate political ideology that also favours longer sentences
primarily not vegan and primarily not vegetarian
Since 12 May
After publication of this article both London and Manchester have experienced terrorist attacks. Public safety and national security need to be at the forefront of any government policy. Nonetheless, everyday issues such as the need for an animal abuse register cannot be forgotten. Having an animal abuse register is one way we all can feel a bit more secure. An animal abuse register may provide another route for identifying potential terrorist and potentially identify those who can do us harm. Whilst the animal abuse register may not be a priority, at this moment, it is still a way we (as a nation) can make Britain safer.
Therefore, while the ransomware attack demonstrates the need for security. Nonetheless, we cannot lose sight of something more personal the need for each one of us to feel safe. One way all of us can feel more secure is knowing there is animal abuse register that provides longer sentences for those who abuse animals. It can provide a way to address the rising cost of crime and be self-sustaining. As the general election gets closer it is important to remember our supporters are in the groups that vote and it is important to remember what matters most is an animal abuse register that provides longer sentences for those who abuse animals.
The Shocking Truth What the UK Political Parties Do Not Want You to Know about Their Support for the Animal Abuse Register
In November 2015 Maxine Berry and Brian Berry started an incredible journey. Maxine started the Justice for Chunky petition calling for a UK wide Animal Abuse Regster Brian supports her by doing much of the background work. Their work is raising awareness by collecting nearly 600,000. Resulting int the Green Party making the animal abuse register their policy.
Now, approximately 18 months after starting the petition the UK government is calling for a general election. It gives the chance to get all 600,000 voices herd. In order to get all 600,000 voices herd we must act as a cohesive group. How exciting is that?
For Maxine Berry and Brian Berry it is quite exciting. Imagine if all of us who signed the petition vote and vote for the party that best supports the register? Imagine the change we can bring? Now, imagine having the the register? What do you see? I see 600,000 voices speaking in unison. The power of their vote ending animal cruelty. Their power, bringing longer sentences for those who commit animal cruelty and stopping those who abuse animals from working with the most vulnerable.
Need for Animal Abuse Register
During this time it is important each candidate and party will reflect on what is important. Politicians will talk about brexit, taxes, immigration; and benefits. These issues are largely impersonal issues that politician spin to gain votes. Politicians ignore issues that at are important to voters.
Over the last 18 months, we have reached out to all major parties including Plaid Cymru in Wales. We are grateful to Plaid Cymru and Bethan Jenkins AM for their work on the register in Wales. Likewise we are thankful to the Green Party for their tireless support of the register and their help, has moved both of us.
Parties Needing to Take Further Action
Nonetheless Maxine and Brian struggle to understand why the Conservatives are not reaching out to them regarding the register. The register gives them the opportunity to look tough on an issue that impacts millions of voters. The register can give the Conservatives the opportunity to make Britain safer while protecting its most vulnerable members. Supporting the register can help the Conservatives deliver a sizable majority in Parliament.
Likewise, the register for Labour can help attract voters they may need while addressing a crucial issue that calls for a balance of rehabilitation, tougher sentencing, and protecting the public. According to recent polls Labour is approximately 15% behind the Conservatives and it appears Labour’s leader, from on media reports, is toxic to them. Supporting the register is one way for Labour to improve their image.
Lets Work Together
We are always willing to reach out to any party, to meet at their convenience, and to discuss an issue that impacts all of us animal abuse. Animal abuse is not a localised issue only impact pet owners and farmers, it impacts us all.
When you vote in the general election in June, remember so far Plaid Cymru in Wales and the Green Party in the UK are fighting to end animal cruelty through the animal abuse register. They are the ones that realise there is a link between animal cruelty and the chance the individual may become violent against another human. Just because there is a chance it does not guarantee that they will. Nonetheless, the register offers the opportunity to track those who abuse animals by placing them on register, identifying those at risk to provide them the help they need, and when a juvenile is involved providing the necessary support the family. By fighting for the register we are fighting to provide a better tomorrow for everyone, including the animals, in Britain.
Update 23 April 2017
Since writing the initial article regarding political party support the Green Party, as we understand, may not stand a candidate in Plymouth in order to support Labour. For Maxine and Brian this is disappointing. They wholeheartedly support the Green Party’s animal abuse register policy but are disappointed the Green Party attempt to support Labour. Reason for their disappointment lies in Labour’s lack of support for animal abuse register, in particular the animal abuse register is not a part of Labour’s current manifesto and they have other concerns regarding the party. This potential decision by the Green Party is making Brian and Maxine, question Green Party’s commitment to the register. They ask their supporters to think about their decision to vote Green Party and what their vote will mean. In particular what their vote may mean if Corbyn is elected Prime Minister. Brian and Maxine hopes the Green Party will re-think their support for Labour and rethink running a candidate in Plymouth against Labour.
Update 2 May 2017
Maxine and Brian are still seeing articles about a potential Labour and Green Party agreement. We are disappointed and believe Green Party should stand on its own merits by using the animal abuse register as a way to attract voters. Instead of trying to reach an agreement regarding running of candidates to give each party the best chance at winning.
Update 11 May 2017
Today a variety of print media are leaking Labour’s manifesto. Whilst is is not a shock to us, it is nonetheless disappointing. Our disappointment lies in the Green Party trying to seek a “Progressive Alliance,” with Labour instead of believing in its own uniqueness. It is our concern by trying to align with the Labour Party and not run candidates in order to establish an alliance the Green Party will be damaged thereby hurting the animal abuse register cause. Another disappointment lies in the reports on Laobur’s manifesto there is nothing in it that call for animal abuse register. With just under a month until the general election it is our hope the Green Party moves away the “Progressive Alliance,” aspirations with Labour and focuses on winning seats in order to progress the animal abuse register.
Update 14 May 2017
I have looking through the tweets from the Green Party over the last few weeks. The focus is not on the animal abuse register and I am struggling to see any supporting the register. Instead the focus is on decriminalising sex work and immigration detention centres. This leave me to question the commitment the Green Party has to promote the animal abuse register, to give a voice to Britain’s most vulnerable and make the UK more prosperous country. In the run up to the general election, I am hoping the Green Party refocuses its effort on the register and raise awareness of its need.
Update 16 May 2017
After reading Labour’s manifesto, I am disappointed. To begin with animal welfare gets less than 1/2 page attention and most of it is dedicated to large bold fonts. Another disappointment lies in Labour talking about increasing sentencing for animal cruelty but it does not state how much of an increase. Finally Labour manifest is silent on the animal abuse register. If media reports are correct Green Party is working at forming a tactical progressive alliance with Labour, it makes me question Green Party’s commitment to the animal abuse register.
Update 18 May 2017
I have read the Liberal Democrats manifesto and in regards to animal welfare, I am impressed. The Liberal Democrats have specifically stated they want to increase sentencing from six months to five years for animal cruelty (page 5). This is a step in the right direction and it would have been better if there was a mention of an animal abuse register.
Update 19 May 2017
Yesterday, Conservative release their manifesto and it is disappointing. There is very little mention about animal welfare. Animal welfare only gets 1 paragraph on page 26 of their manifesto. Furthermore there is no mention of longer sentences for animal cruelty and no mention of the register.
If you have question or wish to get in touch please use the below form.
Can We Really Trust License Fee to Fully Fund the Animal Abuse Register
Rarely a day goes by without print media writing about another case of animal cruelty. The stories are heart-breaking leaving you feeling upset, helpless, enraged; and wanting to do something. Worst yet, under current sentencing guidelines a pet is considered mere property and there is no concept of guardianship. This means under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, the longest sentence can be given is six months in jail. A very short-time for someone who has hurt a member of the family that cannot speak for themself and relies on us for protection.
What can be done to help stop the horrific cruelty to family pets? There must be a solution? Yes, there is proven solution and it very simple. The proven solution is implementing Animal Abuse Register, similar to the state of Tennessee, in the UK is an option. The Tennessee model is proven because it has been around since January 2016 and as this author understands it, there has been no issues.
So why not implement the Tennessee model? There are two reasons: reluctance and funding. Anything new always is met with preposterous objections. In regards to implementing the animal abuse register based on the Tennessee model this author believes objections to the Tennessee model is based more on anti-Americanism, personal agenda, and dumb belief by some the major drawback to the Tennessee model (the public naming of individuals) that may lead to vigilantism. At the time of writing this article, this author is not aware of any widespread cases of vigilantism against those named in Tennessee and without further evidence this author does not accept public naming of individuals will lead to vigilantism. Nonetheless, this author does not believe the strength of the Tennessee model solely lies in the public naming of those convicted of abusing animals but believes the strength of Tennessee model lies legislation. The legislation strength lies in the sentencing and defining of the term animal.
What are the three types of funding models for an animal abuse register?
Implementing a register may sound like a quick solution. However, the issue lies in funding it. Currently, as this author understands it, enforcing the Animal Welfare Act 2006 is costly and there is not enough funding available. This author believes the reason why the Animal Welfare Act 2006 is failing pet owners is because it is all encompassing thereby making enforcement difficult and costly. For a register to work, it must be able to fund itself. Currently there are three possible options: Green Party policy regarding license fee, a point of sale check that can include a check being done by an employer or doing nothing.
Is a very good policy that will quickly generate revenue for the government and depending on the level of voluntary compliance, the amount of revenue generated can be massive. The massive generation can sustain the policy for a while. However, the policy as I understand it, does not include renewal and it does not include a mechanism to ensure someone who is issued a license is regularly checked to ensure they are not on the register. Another issue lies that it is all encompassing, covering all animals thereby running into similar issues regarding enforcement. In order to ensure someone who has a license is not on the register it will mean the license will have to be read, like a chip and pin, to ensure the individual has not been added to the register. Furthermore the license fee policy is silent on how enforcement will be conducted. This issue of license checks and enforcement leaves many questions. In particular the concern the license fee for this author raises is the violation of civil liberties, such as stop and search, to ensure everyone who has a pet has a license or enforcement vans driving through neighbourhoods.
Point of Sale and Employer Checks
Point of Sale and Employer Checks is relative an exciting approach since it is a self-sustaining providing several millions for the government because enforcement will be done at the Council level instead of the national level. This means Councils can charge an additional fee to defray the cost of enforcement for pet shops. Plus this promising model is focuses on the Tennessee model, whereby the Animal Welfare Act is updated to provide longer sentences for those who foolishly attack the family pet.
Cost of doing nothing may appear free but it is not. The cost of doing nothing extracts a high price on families. and society There is a link between those who abuse animals and those who have the potential to hurt others. This author is not saying everyone who abuses an animal will abuse a person. Instead this author is saying there is a link that cannot be ignored that is cost the government millions of pounds each year in prosecutions, police time, jail space; and the harm done to families.
My analysis shows over time, the cost of the Green Party Policy without increasing the license fee, without limiting exemptions, or without further defining what enforcement will include will risk the policy not being self-sufficient. It will mean increasing the license fee, increasing enforcement activities and / or for example, deny productive members of society access to seeing eye dogs because they cannot afford the license fee because their exemption was rehttp://Cost and benefit analysis of the animal abuse register for the United Kingdom as completed by Brian Berry, Co-Founder of the AAR – Animal Abuse Register / Justice for Chunky and Co-Owner Brighter Tomorrow.moved.
Whereas the point of sale with employer check is a self-sustaining approach with the potential to provide a windfall and doing nothing hurts society.
It is therefore, based on the analysis provided, point of sale with employer checks be the way forward to fund an animal abuse register.
Over half-million signatures exist on the Justice for Chunky petition calling for an Animal Abuse Register. Barely a day goes by when print media does not cover a story of an animal abuse. Politicians and the media are discussing. It is something that will, someday, become law because it impacts us all. What is the animal abuse register? How do you become involved? In the coming days and months these questions will be answered. As we build and add to this site there will be chances for you to input to us about your views. If you are unsure what the register is about and how it might impact you, watch the below video containing clips regarding the discussion of the animal abuse register by the Green Party. It will answer some of your questions but if you want more information then please visit our Facebook site. Finally if you have not already signed the petition, please sign it and keep updated on our progress.