Nice people thread part 7 - a thread in its prime

PasturesNew

.... and off to work we go. Had to make another packed lunch as I'd eaten it last night

BertieUK

All of us that are pet owners will have to micro-chip our four legged friends according to news this morning....


...Every dog owner in England will have to microchip their animal by April 2016 under plans aimed at cutting the growing number of strays.

The government says owners who refuse to comply with changes to the Animal Welfare Act face fines of up to £500.

Rice-sized microchips with a code containing the contact details of owners will be fitted to dogs.

A legal loophole could also be closed, meaning owners could face prosecution if their dog attacked on private land.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21345730

BertieUK

lostinrates wrote: »

I like Salisbury, personally. It's a bit closed off feeling. It has trains that run very late put from London (important for us and possibly helpful for SB in the future?) QUOTE]

My OH says that the 'expressway roads' around the city scare her to bits driving on them, her own words, so we will give Salisbury a miss to live but still like to visit.

We have moved our thoughts to Andover so we will see what their is to offer there.

GDB2222

I absolutely support civil partnerships and equality for GLT. I am less sure about renaming civil partnerships as marriages, which is effectively what the legislation does. It causes hurt to quite a large minority of people and confers no benefit that I can see on GLTs.

lostinrates

BertieUK wrote: »

All of us that are pet owners will have to micro-chip our four legged friends according to news this morning....


...Every dog owner in England will have to microchip their animal by April 2016 under plans aimed at cutting the growing number of strays.

The government says owners who refuse to comply with changes to the Animal Welfare Act face fines of up to £500.

Rice-sized microchips with a code containing the contact details of owners will be fitted to dogs.

A legal loophole could also be closed, meaning owners could face prosecution if their dog attacked on private land.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21345730

Ours are microchipped already. However, they do not always have their name tags on, and theirs are not actually compliant with the law. Thios is primarily because i have been advised that this increases the risk of dog napping/ransom. The reason they do not always have tags on is because they seen especially skilled at losing them and they very rarelyu have collars on at home anyway...so for example, if someone were to let them out through a gate, it would be highly unlikely they would have a collar on.

lostinrates

GDB2222 wrote: »

I absolutely support civil partnerships and equality for GLT. I am less sure about renaming civil partnerships as marriages, which is effectively what the legislation does. It causes hurt to quite a large minority of people and confers no benefit that I can see on GLTs.

What about my suggestion, all registery office weddings being civil partnership and people being left to make the decision in their own religious and spiritual groups whether to offer a 'marriage' ceremony?

So, everyone would be partners, and some people would be husband and wife, wife and wife or whatever, depending on what a belief system group offered (church, humanist ceremony, synagogue, whatever).

I wonder what we would have done in that situation. Before 'eloping'
A wedding was being planned. I wonder if being forced to think about OT in other terms might have prompted a different decision or outcome or whether dh would have been dp.

silvercar

michaels wrote: »

I
DW can't get that this is the right thing as her religious beliefs block her from understanding right from wrong. Way I look at is imagine the boot was on the other foot and she and I were denied the same rights because we were heterosexual...

Spirit wrote: »

I am confused by this and really do not know what you mean.

Matthew Parris wrote an article in The Times, a couple of months back, saying we should see that the reason a lot of people are against gay marriage is just because their religion tells them it is wrong. So he deduces that we should therefore discount their opinion because it is not necessarily their thoughts.

He expressed it better than me, I'll see if the article is on the web, but it may well be hidden behind The Times pay wall.

My religion tells me its wrong, but I disagree. I haven't got a problem with gay marriage at all.

Amongst my kids generation it is a complete non-issue. My parents in-laws have a problem with it and my grandparents (now long gone) weren't convinced that gays really existed.

silvercar

Found it:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/matthewparris/article3567221.ece

Headed "religion does not belong in the small print" October13, 2012

A snippet as I suspect it is behind the pay wall (and I subscribe),

..... People should be free to hate homosexuality on any grounds they like. I absolutely don’t question anyone’s right, through scriptural interpretation, prayerful contemplation or divine revelation, to preach that homosexuality or any other kind of human behaviour offends the Divine Will, and to condemn such behaviour; and to rail against it in whatever terms they choose. I don’t know the Divine Will. Some people think they do. They must say what they think.
But the rest of us have a right to know the source of their opinions, and if they are faith-based those who hold them have a duty in all honesty to declare it. It is slippery for people to couch objections that are really undeclared religious objections in the language of a secular argument.
The reason is obvious. The audience may not share the speaker’s religious faith, and if they knew his advice was faith-based might wish to discount it.
Yet in the broadcast media in particular, a convention is growing that a speaker’s or interviewee’s own faith is a private matter about which it is inappropriate to inquire. And, half-heeding Alastair Campbell’s advice that “we don’t do God”, politicians whose views are informed by religious conviction increasingly choose not to mention it.

.
.
.
Everyone has a right to opinions, including opinions they believe to represent God’s will. But if that’s their evidence they shouldn’t be coy about it. We are not well served by a respect for religious privacy that fosters something little short of concealment.

I actually disagree with the article. If you discount someone's opinion because you don't like it, but on the grounds that their religion's beliefs force them to have that view, what do you think when someone religious disagrees with their teachings? Does that mean their opinion counts for more than someone who has no religion?

vivatifosi

Spirit wrote: »

Aunty Viva sounds like every little chaps dream aunt. A potential provider of a drum kit. Just for the hell of it.

Heck yes! They already have a piano and a guitar. It is only a matter of time.

vivatifosi

Re microchipping. Saw an article this morning saying that (I think the numbers are right) 110,000 dogs are found every year. Of these only half find their way back to their owners and something like 6000 are put down as they can't find space in pounds, or for other reasons. Microchipping is seen as the way to cut down the 55,000 whose owners can't be found.

However AIUI, and lir's post sort of reinforces this, there is no standard in chipping or where to put the chip. So you can have a chipped dog found but the scanner looks in the wrong place or for the wrong type of chip. I'd like to find out more about this.

In theory the law change sounds a good idea, but the type of people who are irresponsible with dogs are probably the same ones who won't give a flying fig about it.