Well given that this was first discovered almost 4 months ago, it seems they were not in that much of a hurry anyway.
If the authorities had allowed the animal to be innoculated, the issue would never have arisen in the first place, but in the UK you are not allowed to do so, for the reasons I already stated…but yet other countries have no problems with innoculation.
Because most bull owners are farmers, who see the bull (essentially) as a good, and so it is easy to fairly compensate the farmers when the bull is killed, and the farmers are not especially bothered.
The owners of this particular bull saw him as a deity, and no amount of compensation would justify his killing. Surely the difference is obvious?
If there was time, and no one else was getting infected, then sure, innoculate him. I just think the problem comes when the bull being an idol outweighs the health risks.
If it’s too dangerous to keep the bull around, then that’s really just too bad. It’s not a question of how much they like the bull–it’s a question of public health. It doesn’t matter how much they love the bull. If it could potentially hurt others, then that’s what you have to look at it.
Aren’t you the one who thought it was okay to kill tigers and elephants for the sake of social conventions?
But how bad are the health risks? No one has given any statistics, which suggests to me (being used to the British Government) that the risks are insignificant.
Yes. And I ate some beef for lunch. My problem isn’t with killing cows in general, it’s about overriding so many people who were concerned about a specific cow.
The problem Zoggie is that they didn’t have the option of innoculating this animal, we in the UK are simply not allowed to do this.
In many ways it is the DFA that is to blame, had a dispensation been issued there would not have been a problem.
The policy of not innoculating farm stock has arguments on both sides, but this was not a farm animal, one would have thought that this being the case, there would be some mechanism to allow it, after all, there are folk in the UK who own pigs as pets, pigs are also vulnerable to many infections.
You would think there would be some sort of licensing policy that would allow exemptions from the non-innoculation policy provided certain conditions were met, but no, our national policy must remain fixated and plough on blindly, and twenty years or more behind the times.
I find the whole thing by UK authorites highly hypocritical, since the policy is heavily influenced by those in the farming lobby.
On the one hand they will not allow licenced vaccination because it could cost them money, and yet, when it comes to racehorses, which are in effect farm livestock, they do have such a system, but guess what, the people who allow this exception - but not the one for pets and deities - are largely the same.
It’s all about money and political influence, it is notheing to do with a sensible policy.
We had lots of fuss about rabies, despite effective vaccines being available, the stupid quarantine laws. It took decades for the farming authorites to catch up with reality and technology, yet countries in Europe where rabies is found have effective means to control it, they must think our policy of no innoculations is insane.
This whole situation need never have happened, it just stupid country Colonel Blimps setting national policy, regardless of sense.
The animal was regarded as special by a group of people - that’s really the only kind of special there ever is anyway.
I don’t think that animal should have been saved (if that were possible) because it was an idol, but because people desperately wanted that to happen. If the animal had been a beloved pet, that would have been exactly the same, IMO. If a cure was possible, and the owners who really wanted it could afford it, that’s what should have been done.
If the animal was so isolated how did it contract T.B. in the first place?
But apart from that it would have set a precedent ,other religions that are comparatively recent imports could demand the legal smoking of marijuana ,multiple wives,child sex,Fatwahs and that suttee and honour killings be legalised.
Already for example ,Sihks are exempted from the U.Ks crash helmet laws which is fair enough in my view ,except that a Sihk friend of mine has told me that many of his co-religionists (including himself) of contempary generations no longer practice the rule that their hair and beards must never be cut.
It would appear that some religous rules that cause the faithful to receive preferential treatment under the law are written in stone ,whereas those that are a little more irksome can be dropped easily with no fear of eternal damnation or what ever approprobium is dished out for noncompliance within the belief system of choice.
Gosh, sounds like a slippery slope.
Why does religion have to be part of the argument? A bunch of people wanted to save a valuable animal. That’s all.
Just what I wanted to say, but much better put. Bravo!
Absolutely. I found it irritating that the National Secular Society decided to get involved (and I know from personal experience that a lot of them are the kind of people who work at RSPCA charity shops on their days off, which makes the whole idea even odder).
Wow. No one yet made any kind of “sacred cow” joke.
Doesn’t that only apply if they’re actually wearing a pagri? If they aren’t, then they have to abide by the normal laws. It’s not so much an exemption for sikhs as it is for those people who wear pagri.
The pagri exemption also applies to sikhs serving in the armed forces (except the RAF), but then I can’t see anyone disagreeing with that as they have proved themselves time and again as some of the most competent soldiers in the British Army (lots of battle honours in WWII). I do wonder how they cope during NCBW training, do they have a special gasmask?
And Suttee? Really? Who is campaigning to allow that in the UK? I think the British government laid out its position on widows throwing their ghee coated bodies on pyres quite a long time ago.
If you’re willing to put your trust in a bunch of monks that I assume have never taken a single medical course to prevent an infected animal from spreading a disease, be my guest. I’m not sure most of us are willing to take that risk, and you’ll have to pardon us for not giving a damn about making some people upset about it.
Tuberculosis is a bacterial disease, not a viral disease. There is no way to vaccinate against it.
Holy Cow 
Umm… there are plenty of vaccines against bacterial diseases.
For example, off the top of my head:
-Tuberculosis
-Tetanus
-Anthrax
-Pneumococcal
-Diphtheria
-Haemophilus influenzae
-Meningococcus
-Pertussis
-Typhoid
-Cholera
That is exactly the point I was making,in the U.K. its illegal now and will stay that way,(though its illegal in India but is still being practiced)just as a T.B. infected cow must be destroyed now and it will stay that way.
I’m all for recognizing people’s distress as a legitimate motivation for public policy, and I also think that, in a vacuum, it would be better to spare this particular cow.
However, this is (or should be) a question about the rule of law. If the executors of the law are able to disregard it when you think it’s a good idea, then they will also be able to disregard it when you think it’s a bad idea – and, significantly, this includes instances in which the officials are malicous, self-serving, or otherwise corrupt. Government is useless without the rule of law, and sacrificing a cow (no pun intended) that, on balance, should probably have been spared is a small price to pay to stay true to that ideal.
Oh really?
Just to supplement casdave’s sarcasm: Oh really?