“Its only meat take a chill pill. And come on how many BNP,EDL and other people who hate Islam eat from muslim takeaways and resturants???? Dont worry it wont turn you into a muzzlim!!!!”

“@ nicky

that should read ministry of food, not defence”

“@ andy

If you and 1manmission are referring to the arrests around cobridge last year then here is what happened

Houses were raided, all the people who were raided were NOT arrested but equipment was taken. Some lads were arrested, questioned then released.

No charges were bought and ALL equipment was returned, so yeah i think that means they were INNOCENT

Not sure how you define guilty and innocent but by the law of this land they were innocent

So LOL as much as you like, and of course this 'truth' that you 'know' we would love to hear”

“@ nicky

Nicky i have read that report before and it is evidence as put forward by the FAWC, this 'evidence' has been proven to be false. If you read the report the tests where the animal was stunned to 'prove' less pain, you will see the stunned the animal after the incision making the tests void as the animal is already 'dead'.

My capitals were not there in order to appear 'right' or shout but to emphasis the word. Hope the '' are to your satisfaction

The fact is that evidence also shows that it is only kosher meat that is never stunned, 70-90% (depending on who you believe) of UK halal meat is stunned, so not an issue surely?

By the way i believe the stunning before method is not halal. Basically i have read the 'way' to slaughter islamically and there is particular emphasis on not causing undue pain to the animal. Now if you ask VIVA or the RSPCA they will give you reams and reams of evidence that stunning is very painful for the animal, but pleasing to the human eye compared to religious slaughter.

FAWC introduced stunning to increase the productivity not because of animal welfare

incidentally new zealand overturned the ban on religious slaughter

I enjoy your discussion on this topic as you provide evidence and dont resort to name calling etc, and i say this with all due respect, but please read the 2008 ministry of defence report by Poulliard and you will see the 'scientific' proof that slaughter without stunning is better

You see the reaon i entertain this debate is because it is a BNP false propaganda methodology that people have bought into. If thgis was not the case then the titles would be about religious slaughter not just halal. As i mentioned stunning seems to be the method with a lot of halal so really is there an issue?

I do agree with labelling by the way, and believe this should be the case with everything. Even game. Where it is shot or snared and then the neck is wrung. I am certain no stunning takes place there.”

“@1boymission.

"as for the terrorists, lets wait shall we. remember the last time this happened in cobridge at a cost of £83000 and they were all innocent "

Are you sure they were all innocent? Lol. You must take us all for fools, well the legal system of this country has let us down but really, we all know the truth.”

“Imran; "I think you will find that most evidence actually points to religious slaughter being superior and LESS cruel and the animal suffers LESS when not stunned."
Where is your evidence?

"Of course most ignore this EVIDENCE as it doesnt provide propaganda and suit the argument"
But yours is just propaganda if you don't provide a reference to it. Writing it in capitals doesn't make it evidence.

The following article is just one of many that points to halal and kosher as producing more suffering:

http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snsc-01314.pdf

I've picked that reference because it brings together other references into one place. In fact the law recognises halal and kosher are more cruel as it doesn't allow the method apart from with the religious excuse (I don't think religion should be an excuse).

If the evidence were that halal and kosher caused less suffering then I would be arguing we should always use those methods, but it's not where the real evidence is pointing.

Warren dear, I have seen that cheese, nearly bought some but didn't. I like marmite with cheese but like it separate. Best use crusty white farmhouse bread, thin layer of margarine, moderate spread of marmite, generous slice of cheese - result - delicious cheese and marmite sandwich! I have tried the marmite cereal bars though, they are nice, good for a snack to take out when walking.”

“So, if you're a "leftie" you:
1) only use insults and not reasoned argument
2) you are a sad git living in a fantasy world not the real world
3) your outlook of treating people on an individual basis and not hating based on race, nationality, religion and orientation is actually appeasement
4) because you don't agree with the BNP you're a traitor to your race and country etc...

In other words to combat Islamist extremism you must learn to hate people based on religion. In other words become like them, only the opposite side of the same coin. Just a shame people like us are in the minority and the majority just get on with life.”

“PS to the author of the article. I think you will find that most evidence actually points to religious slaughter being superior and LESS cruel and the animal suffers LESS when not stunned.

Of course most ignore this EVIDENCE as it doesnt provide propaganda and suit the argument

As a vegetarian you should be against all forms of slaughter not just 'islamic'. which incidentally is the same as kosher.

However i am sure that plenty of studies show that vegetarianism , although a viable LIFE CHOICE, is not FREE fom animal cruelty, the state of our rivers being just 1 example”

“Ok is it just me or is the title of this thread a bit ...well... wrong

the reason i say this is basically because most 'halal' food is mainly available from 'halal' butchers. So if you go into a 'halal' butchers isnt the meat 'halal' by default?

Now if i went into a 'fish' shop i would be shopping for 'fish' right? non fish stuff would be labelled?

Now i know some supermarkets have starting stocking 'halal' products. Supermarkets that are not specifically 'halal' eg tesco/asda etc.

Now they 'have to' label it as 'halal', to not do so would mean those wanting 'halal' would not know it is 'halal' so wouldnt purchase it. So they would, from a commercial perspective always label, surely?”

“@ I,C

Just so you know my comment was not an attack on my jewish brethren. It was more to do with people's ignorance.

It is a well known fact that kosher meat has by far preceded halal. The method is virtually the same. In fact some muslims argue that kosher meat can be eaten by them

No in context with the actual article, kosher has been available for generations. It is also well known that the majority of large stores are jewish owned. EG Marks and Spencers.

Kosher and israeli products have been available without labelling for decades.

Again not an attack on these styores or owners. More on the ignorance of people who 'believe the hype' or are in fact ignoring this due to islamaphobia.

You see i understand the vegetarian and vegan stance. No i dont agree with it but there is consistency as in slaughter of animals = cruel

Its when distinctions are drawn with no basis or fact, or one type is 'picked on' that it becomes 'racist' or 'discriminatory'. Again not labelling all as this as i do believe it is fear and ignorance”