MONEY MORAL DILEMMA: Should Anne put the animals down?

aliasojo

Who is?





Edit: And we're off.......:rotfl:

Clive_Woody

aliasojo wrote: »

No, not at all. I was simply offering a reply to your earlier comment.

And most welcome is was too.

aliasojo

Clive_Woody wrote: »

And most welcome is was too.

Thank you. Should I call you cindy? :rotfl:

claire5005_2

Clive_Woody wrote: »

If you are referring to me then I can assure you I am not on a wind up, but simply trying to stop Enchantica from derailing this discussion by claiming hers is the only option.

I hope this is clear.

all you have achieved is to derail the discussion into a tit for tat row - you know "is this the 5 minute argument or the full half hour" :rotfl:

reluctantworkingmum

Of course not - she should continue getting deeper into debt which she will never be able to repay, then she will lose her house, become homeless and have the animals taken away ....when lots of readers will rush to look after them as they are old and in need of care (remembering of course that is actually quite traumatic for an elderly animal to change homes)
Sometimes I really do wonder at the mentality of certain people....................

aliasojo

reluctantworkingmum wrote: »

Sometimes I really do wonder at the mentality of certain people....................

I completely agree. Why dig out an old AE when you could just post under your regular ID? Never really understood that but everyone has their own 'mentality' I guess. No matter what the topic.

harryhound

I'm slightly bothered by the fact that my taxes subsidise these pension fund type organisations called animal charities, which in turn get all hot and bothered because they cannot reclaim a tax like VAT.

Anybody know how much it costs to "put a pet to sleep" at a Vets?
How much as a nation do we spend in veterinary charges treating the ailments of our pets?
I would not be surprised to learn that it is more than we spend looking after the nation's livestock?
I do know from practical experience that there is/was (?) a cartel in operation with restrictive rules about pinching each other's customers.

cindyted

aliasojo wrote: »

Thank you. Should I call you cindy? :rotfl:

How come I fit in here??? I wasnt talking about you Aliasojo

fleagle21

NafUk wrote: »

For all the sanctimonious people on here face reality. In the UK more money is given to animal charities every year than to children's charities. Equating putting an animal to death to killing children answers the question why animal charities receive more donations; people are out of touch and have the wrong priorities.

I only give money to animal charities, WWF and the SSPCA - and wouldn't even consider giving money to childrens charities. In my opinion, children are catered for by the state, through the likes of child benefit and tax credits. And are catered for by the state completely when the parents insist on having more and more children, in some cases on purpose, knowing they cannot afford them but everyone else will pick up the tab. So I think enough of my money is pushed their way without voluntarily giving more.

My dogs are my responsibility - I chose to have them, I need to look after them by any means possible. They would eat before me if money was short.
I don't have kids, therefore shouldn't need to pay for them. How are my priorities wrong just because I choose to donate to animal charities rather than childrens?

reluctantworkingmum

aliasojo wrote: »

I completely agree. Why dig out an old AE when you could just post under your regular ID? Never really understood that but everyone has their own 'mentality' I guess. No matter what the topic.

sorry alias ojo - you got that one wrong - afraid it is not an old AE...is actually my only ID.. have never needed more than one ....why do you have others????