I have been following a Facebook group on the slaughter of animals for
food.
I am a meat eater so I have to accept that animals have to be reared and slaughtered to provide my meat.
I believe they have a right to proper care/welfare while being reared
and a a right to a quick painless death. In the circumstances they need
to be stunned quickly and effectively then killed while unconscious.
The main legislation relating to slaughter seems to be:
The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995
The government has also issue guidelines:
Slaughter without stunning
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/halal-and-kosher- slaughter#:~:text=Print%20this%20page,by%20Jewish%20or%20Muslim%20people
The guidelines say:
You must stun all animals before you slaughter them unless an animal is being slaughtered in accordance with religious rites, for halal or
kosher meat.
To meet the requirements for slaughter without stunning:
-
-
-
the meat must be intended for consumption by Jewish or Muslim people
I can't find the requirement in the regulations that "the meat must be intended for consumption by Jewish or Muslim people". Looking at Section
22 the regulation points you to:
The Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (Scotland) Regulations 2012
But I can't find it in there either.
My view in my job was never issue guidelines for anything because they
will inevitably contradict the base document so it will lead to
argument. However, the government clearly thinks differently.
Is the requirement that "the meat must be intended for consumption by
Jewish or Muslim people" a legal requirement that can be enforced or is
it just a guideline that (perhaps) can be ignored?
Many supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to eat it since
I don't seem to have the right to demand meat that is slaughtered except
in accordance with the religious exemptions.
I would appreciate any thoughts.
Many supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to eat it since I >>don't seem to have the right to demand meat that is slaughtered except in >>accordance with the religious exemptions.
I would appreciate any thoughts.
I commend to you the following article which refutes the claim that "many >supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to eat it".
https://www.farmersguide.co.uk/business/food-drink/industry-reacts-to-claims-about-halal-meat-in-uk-supermarkets/
Since this claim is the nexus of your question, removing the claim may
well remove the need for an answer to your question.
Simon Parker wrote:
Many supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to eat it
since-a I don't seem to have the right to demand meat that is
slaughtered except-a in accordance with the religious exemptions.
I would appreciate any thoughts.
I commend to you the following article which refutes the claim that
"many supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to eat it".
https://www.farmersguide.co.uk/business/food-drink/industry-reacts-to-
claims-about-halal-meat-in-uk-supermarkets/
Since this claim is the nexus of your question, removing the claim may
well remove the need for an answer to your question.
It's interesting but doesn't cover my question on what the law is. It
also says that non-stun killing is on the increase and the rationale
given conflicts with what an Imam has stated, that non-stun killing is
not required at all by the Koran,
When supermarkets reply they are extraordinarily vague and don't seem to understand the law.
On 09/01/2026 in message <msc54oF1gu6U1@mid.individual.net> Simon Parker wrote:
Many supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to eat it since I >>>don't seem to have the right to demand meat that is slaughtered except in >>>accordance with the religious exemptions.
I would appreciate any thoughts.
I commend to you the following article which refutes the claim that "many >>supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to eat it".
https://www.farmersguide.co.uk/business/food-drink/industry-reacts-to-claims-about-halal-meat-in-uk-supermarkets/
Since this claim is the nexus of your question, removing the claim may >>well remove the need for an answer to your question.
It's interesting but doesn't cover my question on what the law is. It also says that non-stun killing is on the increase and the rationale given conflicts with what an Imam has stated, that non-stun killing is not required at all by the Koran,
On 09/01/2026 12:20 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Simon Parker wrote:
Many supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to eat it since-a >>>>I don't seem to have the right to demand meat that is slaughtered >>>>except-a in accordance with the religious exemptions.
I would appreciate any thoughts.
I commend to you the following article which refutes the claim that "many >>>supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to eat it".
https://www.farmersguide.co.uk/business/food-drink/industry-reacts-to- >>>claims-about-halal-meat-in-uk-supermarkets/
Since this claim is the nexus of your question, removing the claim may >>>well remove the need for an answer to your question.
It's interesting but doesn't cover my question on what the law is. It >>also says that non-stun killing is on the increase and the rationale >>given conflicts with what an Imam has stated, that non-stun killing is >>not required at all by the Koran,
When supermarkets reply they are extraordinarily vague and don't seem to >>understand the law.
Supermarkets don't do their own slaughtering, do they?
On 2026-01-09, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/01/2026 in message <msc54oF1gu6U1@mid.individual.net> Simon
Parker wrote:
Many supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to eat it
since I don't seem to have the right to demand meat that is >>>>slaughtered except in accordance with the religious exemptions.
I would appreciate any thoughts.
I commend to you the following article which refutes the claim that
"many supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to eat it".
https://www.farmersguide.co.uk/business/food-drink/industry-reacts-to- claims-about-halal-meat-in-uk-supermarkets/
Since this claim is the nexus of your question, removing the claim may >>>well remove the need for an answer to your question.
It's interesting but doesn't cover my question on what the law is. It
also says that non-stun killing is on the increase and the rationale
given conflicts with what an Imam has stated, that non-stun killing is
not required at all by the Koran,
As I understand it, the Koran requires that the animaly be "healthy"
before it is killed (and also be treated well, etc - it's basically
early animal welfare rules as well as food hygiene rules). What that
means is obviously open to a certain amount of interpretation. You can
see why captive bolt devices might be considered to make an animal "not healthy". Electrical stunning on the other hand seems to result in a
variety of opinions.
On 09/01/2026 in message <msc54oF1gu6U1@mid.individual.net> Simon Parker wrote:
Many supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to eat it
since-a I don't seem to have the right to demand meat that is
slaughtered except-a in accordance with the religious exemptions.
I would appreciate any thoughts.
I commend to you the following article which refutes the claim that
"many supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to eat it".
https://www.farmersguide.co.uk/business/food-drink/industry-reacts-to-
claims-about-halal-meat-in-uk-supermarkets/
Since this claim is the nexus of your question, removing the claim may
well remove the need for an answer to your question.
It's interesting but doesn't cover my question on what the law is. It
also says that non-stun killing is on the increase and the rationale
given conflicts with what an Imam has stated, that non-stun killing is
not required at all by the Koran,
When supermarkets reply they are extraordinarily vague and don't seem to understand the law.
On 09/01/2026 in message <msc54oF1gu6U1@mid.individual.net> Simon Parker wrote:
Many supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to eat it
since-a I don't seem to have the right to demand meat that is
slaughtered except-a in accordance with the religious exemptions.
I would appreciate any thoughts.
I commend to you the following article which refutes the claim that
"many supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to eat it".
https://www.farmersguide.co.uk/business/food-drink/industry-reacts-to-
claims-about-halal-meat-in-uk-supermarkets/
Since this claim is the nexus of your question, removing the claim may
well remove the need for an answer to your question.
It's interesting but doesn't cover my question on what the law is. It
also says that non-stun killing is on the increase and the rationale
given conflicts with what an Imam has stated, that non-stun killing is
not required at all by the Koran,
understand the law.
On Fri, 09 Jan 2026 16:31:35 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-09, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:claims-about-halal-meat-in-uk-supermarkets/
On 09/01/2026 in message <msc54oF1gu6U1@mid.individual.net> Simon
Parker wrote:
Many supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to eat it >>>>>since I don't seem to have the right to demand meat that is >>>>>slaughtered except in accordance with the religious exemptions.
I would appreciate any thoughts.
I commend to you the following article which refutes the claim that >>>>"many supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to eat it".
https://www.farmersguide.co.uk/business/food-drink/industry-reacts-to-
Since this claim is the nexus of your question, removing the claim may >>>>well remove the need for an answer to your question.
It's interesting but doesn't cover my question on what the law is. It
also says that non-stun killing is on the increase and the rationale
given conflicts with what an Imam has stated, that non-stun killing is
not required at all by the Koran,
As I understand it, the Koran requires that the animaly be "healthy"
before it is killed (and also be treated well, etc - it's basically
early animal welfare rules as well as food hygiene rules). What that
means is obviously open to a certain amount of interpretation. You can
see why captive bolt devices might be considered to make an animal "not
healthy". Electrical stunning on the other hand seems to result in a
variety of opinions.
There's also supposed to be a prayer said over the animal as it dies.
But this is perfectly acceptable via a PA and looped tape.
These sorts of numbers cause me concern: https://ahdb.org.uk/news/halal-meat-accounts-for-30-of-uk-lamb-sales
On 09/01/2026 12:20, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 09/01/2026 in message <msc54oF1gu6U1@mid.individual.net> Simon Parker
wrote:
Many supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to eat it
since I don't seem to have the right to demand meat that is
slaughtered except in accordance with the religious exemptions.
I would appreciate any thoughts.
I commend to you the following article which refutes the claim that
"many supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to eat it".
https://www.farmersguide.co.uk/business/food-drink/industry-reacts-to-
claims-about-halal-meat-in-uk-supermarkets/
Since this claim is the nexus of your question, removing the claim may
well remove the need for an answer to your question.
It's interesting but doesn't cover my question on what the law is. It
also says that non-stun killing is on the increase and the rationale
given conflicts with what an Imam has stated, that non-stun killing is
not required at all by the Koran,
That view changes over time according to the fashion of the day. Not so
long ago most Cleric said that stunning must not be applied to the animal.
When supermarkets reply they are extraordinarily vague and don'tseem to
understand the law.
I agree with the sentiment.
These sorts of numbers cause me concern: https://ahdb.org.uk/news/halal-meat-accounts-for-30-of-uk-lamb-sales
Strangely only a small proportion of vets at UK abattoirs were born in
the UK. https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2018-03-19/HL6456/
Perhaps packaging should state the conditions under which the animal is slaughtered. Stun, or no-stun.
Personally I think the practice of not stunning or alternative such
placing the animal in nitrogen should be banned.
Religions always conform to the laws of the state, albeit reluctantly.--
After all, the practice of stoning homosexuals has long gone, yet
according to religious teachings the practice is mandated.
On 09/01/2026 12:20, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 09/01/2026 in message <msc54oF1gu6U1@mid.individual.net> Simon
Parker wrote:
Many supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to eat it
since-a I don't seem to have the right to demand meat that is
slaughtered except-a in accordance with the religious exemptions.
I would appreciate any thoughts.
I commend to you the following article which refutes the claim that
"many supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to eat it".
https://www.farmersguide.co.uk/business/food-drink/industry-reacts-
to- claims-about-halal-meat-in-uk-supermarkets/
Since this claim is the nexus of your question, removing the claim
may well remove the need for an answer to your question.
It's interesting but doesn't cover my question on what the law is. It
also says that non-stun killing is on the increase and the rationale
given conflicts with what an Imam has stated, that non-stun killing is
not required at all by the Koran,
That view changes over time according to the fashion of the day. Not so
long ago most Cleric said that stunning must not be applied to the animal.
When supermarkets reply they are extraordinarily vague and don'tseem to
understand the law.
I agree with the sentiment.
These sorts of numbers cause me concern: https://ahdb.org.uk/news/halal-meat-accounts-for-30-of-uk-lamb-sales
Strangely only a small proportion of vets at UK abattoirs were born in
the UK.
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/ detail/2018-03-19/HL6456/
Perhaps packaging should state the conditions under which the animal is slaughtered. Stun, or no-stun.
Personally I think the practice of not stunning or alternative such
placing the animal in nitrogen should be banned.
Religions always conform to the laws of the state, albeit reluctantly.
After all, the practice of stoning homosexuals has long gone, yet
according to religious teachings the practice is mandated.
On 09/01/2026 15:08, Fredxx wrote:
On 09/01/2026 12:20, Jeff Gaines wrote:Yet eating shellfish and wearing mixed fabrics has somehow never been a problem.-a Funny that.
On 09/01/2026 in message <msc54oF1gu6U1@mid.individual.net> Simon
Parker wrote:
Many supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to eat it
since-a I don't seem to have the right to demand meat that is
slaughtered except-a in accordance with the religious exemptions.
I would appreciate any thoughts.
I commend to you the following article which refutes the claim that
"many supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to eat it".
https://www.farmersguide.co.uk/business/food-drink/industry-reacts-
to- claims-about-halal-meat-in-uk-supermarkets/
Since this claim is the nexus of your question, removing the claim
may well remove the need for an answer to your question.
It's interesting but doesn't cover my question on what the law is. It
also says that non-stun killing is on the increase and the rationale
given conflicts with what an Imam has stated, that non-stun killing
is not required at all by the Koran,
That view changes over time according to the fashion of the day. Not
so long ago most Cleric said that stunning must not be applied to the
animal.
-a-a> When supermarkets reply they are extraordinarily vague and don't
seem to
understand the law.
I agree with the sentiment.
These sorts of numbers cause me concern:
https://ahdb.org.uk/news/halal-meat-accounts-for-30-of-uk-lamb-sales
Strangely only a small proportion of vets at UK abattoirs were born in
the UK.
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/
detail/2018-03-19/HL6456/
Perhaps packaging should state the conditions under which the animal
is slaughtered. Stun, or no-stun.
Personally I think the practice of not stunning or alternative such
placing the animal in nitrogen should be banned.
Religions always conform to the laws of the state, albeit reluctantly.
After all, the practice of stoning homosexuals has long gone, yet
according to religious teachings the practice is mandated.
On 09/01/2026 12:20, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 09/01/2026 in message <msc54oF1gu6U1@mid.individual.net> Simon Parker >>wrote:
Many supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to eat it since-a >>>>I don't seem to have the right to demand meat that is slaughtered >>>>except-a in accordance with the religious exemptions.
I would appreciate any thoughts.
I commend to you the following article which refutes the claim that "many >>>supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to eat it".
https://www.farmersguide.co.uk/business/food-drink/industry-reacts-to- >>>claims-about-halal-meat-in-uk-supermarkets/
Since this claim is the nexus of your question, removing the claim may >>>well remove the need for an answer to your question.
It's interesting but doesn't cover my question on what the law is. It >>also says that non-stun killing is on the increase and the rationale >>given conflicts with what an Imam has stated, that non-stun killing is >>not required at all by the Koran,
"An Imam has stated" - but was he speaking Ex Cathedra?
In other words, would every Imam of every strand of Islam[1] agree on this >point?
On 2026-01-09, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
These sorts of numbers cause me concern:
https://ahdb.org.uk/news/halal-meat-accounts-for-30-of-uk-lamb-sales
Would you like to say why they cause you concern?
JNugent wrote:
On 09/01/2026 12:20 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Simon Parker wrote:
Many supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to eat it
since I don't seem to have the right to demand meat that is
slaughtered except-a in accordance with the religious exemptions.
I would appreciate any thoughts.
I commend to you the following article which refutes the claim that
"many supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to eat it".
https://www.farmersguide.co.uk/business/food-drink/industry-reacts-
to- claims-about-halal-meat-in-uk-supermarkets/
Since this claim is the nexus of your question, removing the claim
may well remove the need for an answer to your question.
It's interesting but doesn't cover my question on what the law is. It
also says that non-stun killing is on the increase and the rationale
given conflicts with what an Imam has stated, that non-stun killing
is not required at all by the Koran,
When supermarkets reply they are extraordinarily vague and don't seem
to understand the law.
Supermarkets don't do their own slaughtering, do they?
I have no idea but they are responsible for selling products in
accordance with the law so they must know what the law is and that the product they sell complies with that law.
On 09/01/2026 in message <8Ne8R.1523$17D6.317@fx08.ams1> Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 09/01/2026 12:20, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 09/01/2026 in message <msc54oF1gu6U1@mid.individual.net> Simon Parker >>>wrote:
I commend to you the following article which refutes the claim that >>>>"many supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to eat it".
https://www.farmersguide.co.uk/business/food-drink/industry-reacts-to- >>>>claims-about-halal-meat-in-uk-supermarkets/
Since this claim is the nexus of your question, removing the claim may >>>>well remove the need for an answer to your question.
It's interesting but doesn't cover my question on what the law is. It >>>also says that non-stun killing is on the increase and the rationale >>>given conflicts with what an Imam has stated, that non-stun killing is >>>not required at all by the Koran,
"An Imam has stated" - but was he speaking Ex Cathedra?
I will see if I can find the post but he may have been "On Soapbox".
In other words, would every Imam of every strand of Islam[1] agree on this >>point?
Tell me how to find out and I'll check.
On 09/01/2026 03:06 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 09/01/2026 12:20 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Simon Parker wrote:
Many supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to eat it since
I don't seem to have the right to demand meat that is slaughtered >>>>>>except-a in accordance with the religious exemptions.
I would appreciate any thoughts.
I commend to you the following article which refutes the claim that >>>>>"many supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to eat it".
https://www.farmersguide.co.uk/business/food-drink/industry-reacts- to- >>>>>claims-about-halal-meat-in-uk-supermarkets/
Since this claim is the nexus of your question, removing the claim may >>>>>well remove the need for an answer to your question.
It's interesting but doesn't cover my question on what the law is. It >>>>also says that non-stun killing is on the increase and the rationale >>>>given conflicts with what an Imam has stated, that non-stun killing is >>>>not required at all by the Koran,
When supermarkets reply they are extraordinarily vague and don't seem to >>>>understand the law.
Supermarkets don't do their own slaughtering, do they?
I have no idea but they are responsible for selling products in >>accordance with the law so they must know what the law is and that the >>product they sell complies with that law.
How would a supermarket be able to micro-manage what goes on in
third-party slaughterhouses?
How would a supermarket be able to micro-manage what goes on in third-party slaughterhouses?
On 2026-01-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/01/2026 in message <8Ne8R.1523$17D6.317@fx08.ams1> Sam Plusnet >>wrote:
On 09/01/2026 12:20, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 09/01/2026 in message <msc54oF1gu6U1@mid.individual.net> Simon Parker >>>>wrote:
I commend to you the following article which refutes the claim that >>>>>"many supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to eat it".
https://www.farmersguide.co.uk/business/food-drink/industry-reacts-to- >>>>>claims-about-halal-meat-in-uk-supermarkets/
Since this claim is the nexus of your question, removing the claim may >>>>>well remove the need for an answer to your question.
It's interesting but doesn't cover my question on what the law is. It >>>>also says that non-stun killing is on the increase and the rationale >>>>given conflicts with what an Imam has stated, that non-stun killing is >>>>not required at all by the Koran,
"An Imam has stated" - but was he speaking Ex Cathedra?
I will see if I can find the post but he may have been "On Soapbox".
In other words, would every Imam of every strand of Islam[1] agree on >>>this
point?
Tell me how to find out and I'll check.
It's very easy. You'll just need to spend the rest of your life
travelling the world, asking millions of people. While you're at
it, could you ask every Rabbi if it's permissible to turn on an
electric light switch on the Sabbath, and every Christian priest
if it's alright to drink alcohol in moderation?
On 2026-01-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/01/2026 in message <8Ne8R.1523$17D6.317@fx08.ams1> Sam Plusnet
wrote:
On 09/01/2026 12:20, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 09/01/2026 in message <msc54oF1gu6U1@mid.individual.net> Simon >>>>Parker wrote:
I commend to you the following article which refutes the claim that >>>>>"many supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to eat it".
https://www.farmersguide.co.uk/business/food-drink/industry-reacts-to- >>>>>claims-about-halal-meat-in-uk-supermarkets/
Since this claim is the nexus of your question, removing the claim >>>>>may well remove the need for an answer to your question.
It's interesting but doesn't cover my question on what the law is. It >>>>also says that non-stun killing is on the increase and the rationale >>>>given conflicts with what an Imam has stated, that non-stun killing is >>>>not required at all by the Koran,
"An Imam has stated" - but was he speaking Ex Cathedra?
I will see if I can find the post but he may have been "On Soapbox".
In other words, would every Imam of every strand of Islam[1] agree on >>>this point?
Tell me how to find out and I'll check.
It's very easy. You'll just need to spend the rest of your life
travelling the world, asking millions of people. While you're at it,
could you ask every Rabbi if it's permissible to turn on an electric
light switch on the Sabbath, and every Christian priest if it's alright
to drink alcohol in moderation?
On 10/01/2026 in message <msepbhFevmiU3@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
How would a supermarket be able to micro-manage what goes on in >>third-party slaughterhouses?
You are wandering a long way off my original question relating to the
law in respect of slaughter.
On 2026-01-09, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
These sorts of numbers cause me concern:
https://ahdb.org.uk/news/halal-meat-accounts-for-30-of-uk-lamb-sales
Would you like to say why they cause you concern?
On 2026-01-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 in message <msepbhFevmiU3@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote: >>> How would a supermarket be able to micro-manage what goes on in
third-party slaughterhouses?
You are wandering a long way off my original question relating to the
law in respect of slaughter.
It's also fairly mind-boggling that he has neither heard, nor apparently
can conceive, of supply chain checks.
On 09/01/2026 23:44, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-09, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
These sorts of numbers cause me concern:
https://ahdb.org.uk/news/halal-meat-accounts-for-30-of-uk-lamb-sales
Would you like to say why they cause you concern?
They are noticably different to the 80% halal for sheep from DEFRA:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67c5cf0e750837d7604dbdbf/25-02-14_Slaughter_Sector_Survey_2024__REVISED_.pdf
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:msepbhFevmiU3@mid.individual.net...
How would a supermarket be able to micro-manage what goes on in
third-party slaughterhouses?
Presumably in the same way they must micromanage what goes on in third
party cornflakes and processed pea factories. So as to be reassured that
the workers involved aren't gobbing into the packets of cornflakes or
the tins of peas.
On 2026-01-10, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 09/01/2026 23:44, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-09, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
These sorts of numbers cause me concern:
https://ahdb.org.uk/news/halal-meat-accounts-for-30-of-uk-lamb-sales
Would you like to say why they cause you concern?
They are noticably different to the 80% halal for sheep from DEFRA:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67c5cf0e750837d7604dbdbf/25-02-14_Slaughter_Sector_Survey_2024__REVISED_.pdf
No such figure appears in that document.
But regardless, what is your point?
On 10/01/2026 17:57, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 09/01/2026 23:44, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-09, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
These sorts of numbers cause me concern:
https://ahdb.org.uk/news/halal-meat-accounts-for-30-of-uk-lamb-sales
Would you like to say why they cause you concern?
They are noticably different to the 80% halal for sheep from DEFRA:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67c5cf0e750837d7604dbdbf/25-02-14_Slaughter_Sector_Survey_2024__REVISED_.pdf
No such figure appears in that document.
"82% of total sheep were slaughtered by religious slaughter, mainly by halal methods" page 21
But regardless, what is your point?
The figures in the ahdb report are not reliable.
On 10/01/2026 17:06, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 in message <msepbhFevmiU3@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote: >>>> How would a supermarket be able to micro-manage what goes on in
third-party slaughterhouses?
You are wandering a long way off my original question relating to the
law in respect of slaughter.
It's also fairly mind-boggling that he has neither heard, nor apparently
can conceive, of supply chain checks.
I assume this was said in amusement? There are no supply chain checks
until such point that DEFRA out that beef isn't really beef.
I have been following a Facebook group on the slaughter of animals for
food.
I am a meat eater so I have to accept that animals have to be reared and >slaughtered to provide my meat.
I believe they have a right to proper care/welfare while being reared and
a a right to a quick painless death. In the circumstances they need to be >stunned quickly and effectively then killed while unconscious.
The main legislation relating to slaughter seems to be:
The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995
The government has also issue guidelines:
Slaughter without stunning
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/halal-and-kosher-slaughter#:~:text=Print%20this%20page,by%20Jewish%20or%20Muslim%20people
The guidelines say:
You must stun all animals before you slaughter them unless an animal is >being slaughtered in accordance with religious rites, for halal or kosher >meat.
To meet the requirements for slaughter without stunning:
-
-
-
the meat must be intended for consumption by Jewish or Muslim people
I can't find the requirement in the regulations that "the meat must be >intended for consumption by Jewish or Muslim people". Looking at Section
22 the regulation points you to:
The Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (Scotland) Regulations 2012
But I can't find it in there either.
My view in my job was never issue guidelines for anything because they
will inevitably contradict the base document so it will lead to argument. >However, the government clearly thinks differently.
Is the requirement that "the meat must be intended for consumption by
Jewish or Muslim people" a legal requirement that can be enforced or is it >just a guideline that (perhaps) can be ignored?
Many supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to eat it since I >don't seem to have the right to demand meat that is slaughtered except in >accordance with the religious exemptions.
I would appreciate any thoughts.
On Sat, 10 Jan 2026 12:10:04 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/01/2026 in message <8Ne8R.1523$17D6.317@fx08.ams1> Sam Plusnet
wrote:
On 09/01/2026 12:20, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 09/01/2026 in message <msc54oF1gu6U1@mid.individual.net> Simon
Parker wrote:
I commend to you the following article which refutes the claim that >>>>>> "many supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to eat it". >>>>>>
https://www.farmersguide.co.uk/business/food-drink/industry-reacts-to- >>>>>> claims-about-halal-meat-in-uk-supermarkets/
Since this claim is the nexus of your question, removing the claim >>>>>> may well remove the need for an answer to your question.
It's interesting but doesn't cover my question on what the law is. It >>>>> also says that non-stun killing is on the increase and the rationale >>>>> given conflicts with what an Imam has stated, that non-stun killing is >>>>> not required at all by the Koran,
"An Imam has stated" - but was he speaking Ex Cathedra?
I will see if I can find the post but he may have been "On Soapbox".
In other words, would every Imam of every strand of Islam[1] agree on
this point?
Tell me how to find out and I'll check.
It's very easy. You'll just need to spend the rest of your life
travelling the world, asking millions of people. While you're at it,
could you ask every Rabbi if it's permissible to turn on an electric
light switch on the Sabbath, and every Christian priest if it's alright
to drink alcohol in moderation?
What's a rabbit?
On 2026-01-10, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 17:06, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 in message <msepbhFevmiU3@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote: >>>>> How would a supermarket be able to micro-manage what goes on in
third-party slaughterhouses?
You are wandering a long way off my original question relating to the
law in respect of slaughter.
It's also fairly mind-boggling that he has neither heard, nor apparently >>> can conceive, of supply chain checks.
I assume this was said in amusement? There are no supply chain checks
until such point that DEFRA out that beef isn't really beef.
If you think that UK supermarkets don't conduct any supplier audits
then you're simply wrong. But either way, it's still the answer to
JNugent's rather odd question.
On 10/01/2026 17:06, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
JNugent wrote:
How would a supermarket be able to micro-manage what goes on in
third-party slaughterhouses?
You are wandering a long way off my original question relating to the
law in respect of slaughter.
It's also fairly mind-boggling that he has neither heard, nor apparently
can conceive, of supply chain checks.
I assume this was said in amusement? There are no supply chain checks
until such point that DEFRA out that beef isn't really beef.
Each point in the supply relies upon the previous supplier ticking a box
and being honest. It's a game of dominoes, they all stand in place
until, well, one falls.
If, on the other hand, you have evidence of an army of Tesco inspectors having jollies to all continents to make unannounced spot-checks please
do enlighten me.
On 10/01/2026 in message <msepbhFevmiU3@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 09/01/2026 03:06 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 09/01/2026 12:20 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Simon Parker wrote:
Many supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to eat
it-a-a since I don't seem to have the right to demand meat that >>>>>>> is-a-a slaughtered except-a in accordance with the religious
exemptions.
I would appreciate any thoughts.
I commend to you the following article which refutes the claim
that "many supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to
eat it".
https://www.farmersguide.co.uk/business/food-drink/industry-
reacts--a to- claims-about-halal-meat-in-uk-supermarkets/
Since this claim is the nexus of your question, removing the
claim-a may well remove the need for an answer to your question.
It's interesting but doesn't cover my question on what the law is.
It also says that non-stun killing is on the increase and the
rationale given conflicts with what an Imam has stated, that non-
stun killing-a is not required at all by the Koran,
When supermarkets reply they are extraordinarily vague and don't
seem-a to understand the law.
Supermarkets don't do their own slaughtering, do they?
I have no idea but they are responsible for selling products in
accordance with the law so they must know what the law is and that
the product they sell complies with that law.
How would a supermarket be able to micro-manage what goes on in third-
party slaughterhouses?
You are wandering a long way off my original question relating to the
law in respect of slaughter.
Why would a supermarket try and manage what goes in third-party slaughterhouses?
I have now read through the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 and cannot find "the meat must be intended forNo thoughts on your assertion (to the effect that) supermarkets are responsible for slaughtering policies before their own point of supply?
consumption by Jewish or Muslim people", that seems to be in the
guidelines only.
Anybody any thoughts on my original question?
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:msepbhFevmiU3@mid.individual.net...
How would a supermarket be able to micro-manage what goes on in third-party >> slaughterhouses?
Presumably in the same way they must micromanage what goes on in
third party cornflakes and processed pea factories. So as to be reassured that the workers involved aren't gobbing into the packets of cornflakes or the
tins of peas.
Or worse.
On 10/01/2026 17:51, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 17:06, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 in message <msepbhFevmiU3@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
How would a supermarket be able to micro-manage what goes on in
third-party slaughterhouses?
You are wandering a long way off my original question relating to the >>>>> law in respect of slaughter.
It's also fairly mind-boggling that he has neither heard, nor apparently >>>> can conceive, of supply chain checks.
I assume this was said in amusement? There are no supply chain checks
until such point that DEFRA out that beef isn't really beef.
If you think that UK supermarkets don't conduct any supplier audits
then you're simply wrong. But either way, it's still the answer to
JNugent's rather odd question.
You snipped the most relevant part of my post you were replying to:
An audit is where "Each point in the supply relies upon the previous supplier ticking a box and being honest"
On 09/01/2026 in message <xn0pkkomoig5hc502l@news.individual.net> Jeff Gaines wrote:
I have been following a Facebook group on the slaughter of animals for >>food.
I am a meat eater so I have to accept that animals have to be reared and >>slaughtered to provide my meat.
I believe they have a right to proper care/welfare while being reared and >>a a right to a quick painless death. In the circumstances they need to be >>stunned quickly and effectively then killed while unconscious.
The main legislation relating to slaughter seems to be:
The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995
The government has also issue guidelines:
Slaughter without stunning
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/halal-and-kosher-slaughter#:~:text=Print%20this%20page,by%20Jewish%20or%20Muslim%20people
The guidelines say:
You must stun all animals before you slaughter them unless an animal is >>being slaughtered in accordance with religious rites, for halal or kosher >>meat.
To meet the requirements for slaughter without stunning:
-
-
-
the meat must be intended for consumption by Jewish or Muslim people
I can't find the requirement in the regulations that "the meat must be >>intended for consumption by Jewish or Muslim people". Looking at Section >>22 the regulation points you to:
The Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (Scotland) Regulations 2012
But I can't find it in there either.
My view in my job was never issue guidelines for anything because they >>will inevitably contradict the base document so it will lead to argument. >>However, the government clearly thinks differently.
Is the requirement that "the meat must be intended for consumption by >>Jewish or Muslim people" a legal requirement that can be enforced or is it >>just a guideline that (perhaps) can be ignored?
Many supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to eat it since I >>don't seem to have the right to demand meat that is slaughtered except in >>accordance with the religious exemptions.
I would appreciate any thoughts.
To try and get his back on track I have read through The Welfare of
Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 and the words "the meat
must be intended for consumption by Jewish or Muslim people" do not appear in the Act as far as I can see.
On that basis how enforceable are the guidelines I quoted, if guidelines
can be enforced at all?
On 2026-01-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/01/2026 in message <8Ne8R.1523$17D6.317@fx08.ams1> Sam Plusnet wrote:
"An Imam has stated" - but was he speaking Ex Cathedra?
I will see if I can find the post but he may have been "On Soapbox".
In other words, would every Imam of every strand of Islam[1] agree on this >>> point?
Tell me how to find out and I'll check.
It's very easy. You'll just need to spend the rest of your life
travelling the world, asking millions of people.
On 10/01/2026 01:33 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 10/01/2026 in message <msepbhFevmiU3@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 09/01/2026 03:06 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 09/01/2026 12:20 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Simon Parker wrote:
Many supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to eat it-a-a >>>>>>>>since I don't seem to have the right to demand meat that is-a-a >>>>>>>>slaughtered except-a in accordance with the religious exemptions. >>>>>>>>I would appreciate any thoughts.
I commend to you the following article which refutes the claim that "many
supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to eat it".
https://www.farmersguide.co.uk/business/food-drink/industry- reacts--a >>>>>>>to- claims-about-halal-meat-in-uk-supermarkets/
Since this claim is the nexus of your question, removing the claim-a may
well remove the need for an answer to your question.
It's interesting but doesn't cover my question on what the law is. It >>>>>>also says that non-stun killing is on the increase and the rationale >>>>>>given conflicts with what an Imam has stated, that non- stun killing-a is
not required at all by the Koran,
When supermarkets reply they are extraordinarily vague and don't seem-a >>>>>>to understand the law.
Supermarkets don't do their own slaughtering, do they?
I have no idea but they are responsible for selling products in >>>>accordance with the law so they must know what the law is and that the >>>>product they sell complies with that law.
How would a supermarket be able to micro-manage what goes on in third- >>>party slaughterhouses?
You are wandering a long way off my original question relating to the law >>in respect of slaughter.
Not at all. Your recent post raised the question of whether retailers are >responsible for the manner of slaughter. You said (verbatim):
"... they are responsible for selling products in accordance with the law
so they must know what the law is and that the product they sell complies >with that law".
All I asked was how a supermarket could micro-manage what happens in >abbatoirs.
Why would a supermarket try and manage what goes in third-party >>slaughterhouses?
Presumably, in accordance with what you had said, in order to comply with >the law.
I have now read through the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) >>Regulations 1995 and cannot find "the meat must be intended for >>consumption by Jewish or Muslim people", that seems to be in the >>guidelines only.No thoughts on your assertion (to the effect that) supermarkets are >responsible for slaughtering policies before their own point of supply?
Anybody any thoughts on my original question?
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/01/2026 in message <8Ne8R.1523$17D6.317@fx08.ams1> Sam Plusnet wrote:
[rCa]
"An Imam has stated" - but was he speaking Ex Cathedra?
I will see if I can find the post but he may have been "On Soapbox".
In other words, would every Imam of every strand of Islam[1] agree
on this point?
Tell me how to find out and I'll check.
It's very easy. You'll just need to spend the rest of your life
travelling the world, asking millions of people.
ThatrCOs interestingrCausually religious organisations operate on the word of their supreme being. When did the situation change to that of a popular consultation?
On 2026-01-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/01/2026 in message <xn0pkkomoig5hc502l@news.individual.net> Jeff >>Gaines wrote:
I have been following a Facebook group on the slaughter of animals for >>>food.
I am a meat eater so I have to accept that animals have to be reared and >>>slaughtered to provide my meat.
I believe they have a right to proper care/welfare while being reared and >>>a a right to a quick painless death. In the circumstances they need to be >>>stunned quickly and effectively then killed while unconscious.
The main legislation relating to slaughter seems to be:
The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995
The government has also issue guidelines:
Slaughter without stunning
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/halal-and-kosher-slaughter#:~:text=Print%20this%20page,by%20Jewish%20or%20Muslim%20people
The guidelines say:
You must stun all animals before you slaughter them unless an animal is >>>being slaughtered in accordance with religious rites, for halal or kosher >>>meat.
To meet the requirements for slaughter without stunning:
-
-
-
the meat must be intended for consumption by Jewish or Muslim people
I can't find the requirement in the regulations that "the meat must be >>>intended for consumption by Jewish or Muslim people". Looking at Section >>>22 the regulation points you to:
The Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (Scotland) Regulations 2012 >>>
But I can't find it in there either.
My view in my job was never issue guidelines for anything because they >>>will inevitably contradict the base document so it will lead to argument. >>>However, the government clearly thinks differently.
Is the requirement that "the meat must be intended for consumption by >>>Jewish or Muslim people" a legal requirement that can be enforced or is >>>it
just a guideline that (perhaps) can be ignored?
Many supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to eat it since I >>>don't seem to have the right to demand meat that is slaughtered except in >>>accordance with the religious exemptions.
I would appreciate any thoughts.
To try and get his back on track I have read through The Welfare of
Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 and the words "the meat >>must be intended for consumption by Jewish or Muslim people" do not appear >>in the Act as far as I can see.
On that basis how enforceable are the guidelines I quoted, if guidelines >>can be enforced at all?
If guidelines were just an exact copy of the legislation then there
wouldn't be any point in them existing.
Schedule 12 paragraph 2 of the Regulations says "references to slaughter
by a religious method are references to ... the Jewish method for the
food of Jews ... or ... the Muslim method for the food of Muslims".
Summarising that in the guidelines as "the meat must be intended for >consumption by Jewish or Muslim people" is not 100% accurate but it's
a reasonable summary because, well, they're guidelines. They would
perhaps be improved by the addition of "to be suitable" after the
word "intended".
If it comes down to it, it is of course the legislation which is
legally enforceable, rather than the guidelines.
Certainly neither the Regulations nor the guidelines mean, or were
intended to mean, that if a halal slaughterhouse deliberately sells
meat to a non-Muslim person then they have committed a crime, or
whatever similar loophole the Facebook group thinks it's found.
On 2026-01-10, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 17:51, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 17:06, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 in message <msepbhFevmiU3@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
How would a supermarket be able to micro-manage what goes on in
third-party slaughterhouses?
You are wandering a long way off my original question relating to the >>>>>> law in respect of slaughter.
It's also fairly mind-boggling that he has neither heard, nor apparently >>>>> can conceive, of supply chain checks.
I assume this was said in amusement? There are no supply chain checks
until such point that DEFRA out that beef isn't really beef.
If you think that UK supermarkets don't conduct any supplier audits
then you're simply wrong. But either way, it's still the answer to
JNugent's rather odd question.
You snipped the most relevant part of my post you were replying to:
An audit is where "Each point in the supply relies upon the previous
supplier ticking a box and being honest"
No it isn't.
On 11/01/2026 13:27, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 17:51, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 17:06, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 in message <msepbhFevmiU3@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
How would a supermarket be able to micro-manage what goes on in >>>>>>>> third-party slaughterhouses?
You are wandering a long way off my original question relating
to the law in respect of slaughter.
It's also fairly mind-boggling that he has neither heard, nor
apparently can conceive, of supply chain checks.
I assume this was said in amusement? There are no supply chain checks >>>>> until such point that DEFRA out that beef isn't really beef.
If you think that UK supermarkets don't conduct any supplier audits
then you're simply wrong. But either way, it's still the answer to
JNugent's rather odd question.
You snipped the most relevant part of my post you were replying to:
An audit is where "Each point in the supply relies upon the previous
supplier ticking a box and being honest"
No it isn't.
Do feel free to provide the evidence that supply chain checks are more
than ticking boxes on a supplier's say so.
On 2026-01-11, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 11/01/2026 13:27, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 17:51, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 17:06, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 in message <msepbhFevmiU3@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
How would a supermarket be able to micro-manage what goes on in >>>>>>>>> third-party slaughterhouses?
You are wandering a long way off my original question relating >>>>>>>> to the law in respect of slaughter.
It's also fairly mind-boggling that he has neither heard, nor
apparently can conceive, of supply chain checks.
I assume this was said in amusement? There are no supply chain checks >>>>>> until such point that DEFRA out that beef isn't really beef.
If you think that UK supermarkets don't conduct any supplier audits
then you're simply wrong. But either way, it's still the answer to
JNugent's rather odd question.
You snipped the most relevant part of my post you were replying to:
An audit is where "Each point in the supply relies upon the previous
supplier ticking a box and being honest"
No it isn't.
Do feel free to provide the evidence that supply chain checks are more
than ticking boxes on a supplier's say so.
No thanks. Even if your highly-implausible, evidence-free claim that no supplier audits ever involve anything other than looking at paperwork
was true - which it isn't - it wouldn't make any difference to the fact
that supermarkets *could* do more involved checks, and that is the
obvious answer to JNugent's peculiar question.
On 2026-01-11, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/01/2026 in message <8Ne8R.1523$17D6.317@fx08.ams1> Sam Plusnet wrote:
[rCa]
"An Imam has stated" - but was he speaking Ex Cathedra?
I will see if I can find the post but he may have been "On Soapbox".
In other words, would every Imam of every strand of Islam[1] agree
on this point?
Tell me how to find out and I'll check.
It's very easy. You'll just need to spend the rest of your life
travelling the world, asking millions of people.
ThatrCOs interestingrCausually religious organisations operate on the word of
their supreme being. When did the situation change to that of a popular
consultation?
The question I was answering was how to find out if every Imam agrees on
a particular point, so your question is irrelevant.
But I am, regardless, a bit fascinated to understand the confusion of
ideas that provoked your question. It's almost as if you're a visitor
from another planet who is completely unfamiliar with humans and their beliefs and customs.
Are you under the misapprehension that god is available for interview?
On 10/01/2026 in message <msg0baFl9uhU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 10/01/2026 01:33 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 10/01/2026 in message <msepbhFevmiU3@mid.individual.net> JNugent
wrote:
On 09/01/2026 03:06 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 09/01/2026 12:20 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Simon Parker wrote:
Many supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to eat >>>>>>>>> it since I don't seem to have the right to demand meat that-a is >>>>>>>>> slaughtered except-a in accordance with the religious-a exemptions. >>>>>>>>> I would appreciate any thoughts.
I commend to you the following article which refutes the claim >>>>>>>> that "many supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced >>>>>>>> to-a eat it".
https://www.farmersguide.co.uk/business/food-drink/industry- >>>>>>>> reacts- to- claims-about-halal-meat-in-uk-supermarkets/
Since this claim is the nexus of your question, removing the >>>>>>>> claim-a may well remove the need for an answer to your question. >>>>>>It's interesting but doesn't cover my question on what the law
is.-a It also says that non-stun killing is on the increase and >>>>>>> the-a rationale given conflicts with what an Imam has stated, that >>>>>>> non--a stun killing-a is not required at all by the Koran,
When supermarkets reply they are extraordinarily vague and don't >>>>>>> seem to understand the law.
Supermarkets don't do their own slaughtering, do they?
I have no idea but they are responsible for selling products in
accordance with the law so they must know what the law is and that >>>>> the product they sell complies with that law.
How would a supermarket be able to micro-manage what goes on in
third- party slaughterhouses?
You are wandering a long way off my original question relating to
the-a law in respect of slaughter.
Not at all. Your recent post raised the question of whether retailers
are responsible for the manner of slaughter. You said (verbatim):
"... they are responsible for selling products in accordance with the
law so they must know what the law is and that the product they sell
complies with that law".
All I asked was how a supermarket could micro-manage what happens in
abbatoirs.
Why would a supermarket try and manage what goes in third-party
slaughterhouses?
Presumably, in accordance with what you had said, in order to comply
with the law.
I am a bit puzzled, do you really think that each point in a supply
chain is required to go back and check all previous points in that chain?
I would think it is rather more likely they rely on the paperwork that
comes with the goods surely?
I have now read through the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing)
Regulations 1995 and cannot find "the meat must be intended for
consumption by Jewish or Muslim people", that seems to be in the
guidelines only.
Anybody any thoughts on my original question?
No thoughts on your assertion (to the effect that) supermarkets are
responsible for slaughtering policies before their own point of supply?
You need to point out where I said that.
On 11/01/2026 in message
<slrn10m7aoh.22r.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/01/2026 in message <xn0pkkomoig5hc502l@news.individual.net> Jeff
Gaines wrote:
I have been following a Facebook group on the slaughter of animals for >>>> food.
I am a meat eater so I have to accept that animals have to be reared
and
slaughtered to provide my meat.
I believe they have a right to proper care/welfare while being
reared and
a a right to a quick painless death. In the circumstances they need
to be
stunned quickly and effectively then killed while unconscious.
The main legislation relating to slaughter seems to be:
The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995
The government has also issue guidelines:
Slaughter without stunning
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/halal-and-kosher-
slaughter#:~:text=Print%20this%20page,by%20Jewish%20or%20Muslim%20people >>>>
The guidelines say:
You must stun all animals before you slaughter them unless an animal is >>>> being slaughtered in accordance with religious rites, for halal or
kosher
meat.
To meet the requirements for slaughter without stunning:
-
-
-
the meat must be intended for consumption by Jewish or Muslim people
I can't find the requirement in the regulations that "the meat must be >>>> intended for consumption by Jewish or Muslim people". Looking at
Section
22 the regulation points you to:
The Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (Scotland) Regulations
2012
But I can't find it in there either.
My view in my job was never issue guidelines for anything because they >>>> will inevitably contradict the base document so it will lead to
argument.
However, the government clearly thinks differently.
Is the requirement that "the meat must be intended for consumption by
Jewish or Muslim people" a legal requirement that can be enforced or
is it
just a guideline that (perhaps) can be ignored?
Many supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to eat it
since I
don't seem to have the right to demand meat that is slaughtered
except in
accordance with the religious exemptions.
I would appreciate any thoughts.
To try and get his back on track I have read through The Welfare of
Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 and the words "the meat
must be intended for consumption by Jewish or Muslim people" do not
appear
in the Act as far as I can see.
On that basis how enforceable are the guidelines I quoted, if guidelines >>> can be enforced at all?
If guidelines were just an exact copy of the legislation then there
wouldn't be any point in them existing.
Indeed and I pointed out the dangers of publishing guidelines in my OP.
Schedule 12 paragraph 2 of the Regulations says "references to slaughter
by a religious method are references to ... the Jewish method for the
food of Jews ... or ... the Muslim method for the food of Muslims".
Summarising that in the guidelines as "the meat must be intended for
consumption by Jewish or Muslim people" is not 100% accurate but it's
a reasonable summary because, well, they're guidelines. They would
perhaps be improved by the addition of "to be suitable" after the
word "intended".
That's my perceived danger at work, the guidelines may not reflect the legislation.
If it comes down to it, it is of course the legislation which is
legally enforceable, rather than the guidelines.
Certainly neither the Regulations nor the guidelines mean, or were
intended to mean, that if a halal slaughterhouse deliberately sells
meat to a non-Muslim person then they have committed a crime, or
whatever similar loophole the Facebook group thinks it's found.
I don't think anybody feels they have found anything, we are all seeking guidance and clarification at the moment and struggling because
supermarkets are reluctant to answer questions about how food is killed.
Our objective is only to purchase meat that is slaughtered by the full-
stun method which is non-recoverable, most of us on the grounds of
humane slaughter but some people have said they object to having prayers from religions other than the one they follow uttered over their meat.
At the moment there is a feeling that the law ignores our needs.
On 2026-01-11, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 11/01/2026 13:27, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 17:51, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 17:06, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 in message <msepbhFevmiU3@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
How would a supermarket be able to micro-manage what goes on in >>>>>>>>> third-party slaughterhouses?
You are wandering a long way off my original question relating >>>>>>>> to the law in respect of slaughter.
It's also fairly mind-boggling that he has neither heard, nor
apparently can conceive, of supply chain checks.
I assume this was said in amusement? There are no supply chain checks >>>>>> until such point that DEFRA out that beef isn't really beef.
If you think that UK supermarkets don't conduct any supplier audits
then you're simply wrong. But either way, it's still the answer to
JNugent's rather odd question.
You snipped the most relevant part of my post you were replying to:
An audit is where "Each point in the supply relies upon the previous
supplier ticking a box and being honest"
No it isn't.
Do feel free to provide the evidence that supply chain checks are more
than ticking boxes on a supplier's say so.
No thanks. Even if your highly-implausible, evidence-free claim that no supplier audits ever involve anything other than looking at paperwork
was true - which it isn't - it wouldn't make any difference to the fact
that supermarkets *could* do more involved checks, and that is the
obvious answer to JNugent's peculiar question.
On 10/01/2026 02:41 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msepbhFevmiU3@mid.individual.net...
How would a supermarket be able to micro-manage what goes on in third-party >>> slaughterhouses?
Presumably in the same way they must micromanage what goes on in
third party cornflakes and processed pea factories. So as to be reassured
that the workers involved aren't gobbing into the packets of cornflakes or >> the
tins of peas.
Or worse.
Do they even do that?
Do feel free to provide the evidence that supply chain checks are more than ticking boxes on a supplier's say so.
On 11/01/2026 15:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-11, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 11/01/2026 13:27, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 17:51, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 17:06, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 in message <msepbhFevmiU3@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
How would a supermarket be able to micro-manage what goes on in >>>>>>>>>> third-party slaughterhouses?
You are wandering a long way off my original question relating >>>>>>>>> to the law in respect of slaughter.
It's also fairly mind-boggling that he has neither heard, nor
apparently can conceive, of supply chain checks.
I assume this was said in amusement? There are no supply chain checks >>>>>>> until such point that DEFRA out that beef isn't really beef.
If you think that UK supermarkets don't conduct any supplier audits >>>>>> then you're simply wrong. But either way, it's still the answer to >>>>>> JNugent's rather odd question.
You snipped the most relevant part of my post you were replying to:
An audit is where "Each point in the supply relies upon the previous >>>>> supplier ticking a box and being honest"
No it isn't.
Do feel free to provide the evidence that supply chain checks are more
than ticking boxes on a supplier's say so.
No thanks. Even if your highly-implausible, evidence-free claim that no
supplier audits ever involve anything other than looking at paperwork
was true - which it isn't - it wouldn't make any difference to the fact
that supermarkets *could* do more involved checks, and that is the
obvious answer to JNugent's peculiar question.
I see, so Tesco would audit it's suppliers to successfully ensure horse
meat isn't sold as beef.
If they don't, how can they comply with the law except on relying upon
honest declarations and certification by the supplier.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-11, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/01/2026 in message <8Ne8R.1523$17D6.317@fx08.ams1> Sam Plusnet wrote:
[rCa]
"An Imam has stated" - but was he speaking Ex Cathedra?
I will see if I can find the post but he may have been "On Soapbox".
In other words, would every Imam of every strand of Islam[1] agree >>>>>> on this point?
Tell me how to find out and I'll check.
It's very easy. You'll just need to spend the rest of your life
travelling the world, asking millions of people.
ThatrCOs interestingrCausually religious organisations operate on the word of
their supreme being. When did the situation change to that of a popular
consultation?
The question I was answering was how to find out if every Imam agrees on
a particular point, so your question is irrelevant.
Your mistake was to pose your response in the manner you did, so why did
you make the requirement a general one, viz rCOrCaasking millions of peoplerCarCO,
rather than limit it to Imams, as you have now belatedly attempted to do?
And, having said that, since the word of god is immutable and
unquestionable, one should need to ask only one Imam and not the millions
you mentioned in your malformed question.
On 11/01/2026 03:13 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-11, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 11/01/2026 13:27, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 17:51, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 17:06, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 in message <msepbhFevmiU3@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
How would a supermarket be able to micro-manage what goes on in >>>>>>>>>> third-party slaughterhouses?
You are wandering a long way off my original question relating >>>>>>>>> to the law in respect of slaughter.
It's also fairly mind-boggling that he has neither heard, nor
apparently can conceive, of supply chain checks.
I assume this was said in amusement? There are no supply chain checks >>>>>>> until such point that DEFRA out that beef isn't really beef.
If you think that UK supermarkets don't conduct any supplier audits >>>>>> then you're simply wrong. But either way, it's still the answer to >>>>>> JNugent's rather odd question.
You snipped the most relevant part of my post you were replying to:
An audit is where "Each point in the supply relies upon the previous >>>>> supplier ticking a box and being honest"
No it isn't.
Do feel free to provide the evidence that supply chain checks are more
than ticking boxes on a supplier's say so.
No thanks. Even if your highly-implausible, evidence-free claim that no
supplier audits ever involve anything other than looking at paperwork
was true - which it isn't - it wouldn't make any difference to the fact
that supermarkets *could* do more involved checks, and that is the
obvious answer to JNugent's peculiar question.
There's your error.
I never asked whether supermarkets *could* do their own checks.
I asked whether they *do* their own checks.
I don't think anybody feels they have found anything, we are all seeking guidance and clarification at the moment and struggling because
supermarkets are reluctant to answer questions about how food is killed.
Our objective is only to purchase meat that is slaughtered by the full-
stun method which is non-recoverable, most of us on the grounds of
humane slaughter but some people have said they object to having prayers from religions other than the one they follow uttered over their meat.
At the moment there is a feeling that the law ignores our needs.
On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 15:12:37 +0000, JNugent wrote:
If they don't, how can they comply with the law except on relying upon
honest declarations and certification by the supplier.
But a lot of law rests on people and organisations making declarations
that are assumed to be honest.
On 2026-01-11, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/01/2026 03:13 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-11, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 11/01/2026 13:27, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 17:51, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 17:06, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 in message <msepbhFevmiU3@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
How would a supermarket be able to micro-manage what goes on in >>>>>>>>>>> third-party slaughterhouses?
You are wandering a long way off my original question relating >>>>>>>>>> to the law in respect of slaughter.
It's also fairly mind-boggling that he has neither heard, nor >>>>>>>>> apparently can conceive, of supply chain checks.
I assume this was said in amusement? There are no supply chain checks >>>>>>>> until such point that DEFRA out that beef isn't really beef.
If you think that UK supermarkets don't conduct any supplier audits >>>>>>> then you're simply wrong. But either way, it's still the answer to >>>>>>> JNugent's rather odd question.
You snipped the most relevant part of my post you were replying to: >>>>>>
An audit is where "Each point in the supply relies upon the previous >>>>>> supplier ticking a box and being honest"
No it isn't.
Do feel free to provide the evidence that supply chain checks are more >>>> than ticking boxes on a supplier's say so.
No thanks. Even if your highly-implausible, evidence-free claim that no
supplier audits ever involve anything other than looking at paperwork
was true - which it isn't - it wouldn't make any difference to the fact
that supermarkets *could* do more involved checks, and that is the
obvious answer to JNugent's peculiar question.
There's your error.
I never asked whether supermarkets *could* do their own checks.
I asked whether they *do* their own checks.
No you didn't.
Why would you bother denying something that anyone, including you,
could verify by simply scrolling up the very post in which you were
denying it, where your question can still be seen in the quotes?
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:msg0eoFl9uhU3@mid.individual.net...
On 10/01/2026 02:41 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msepbhFevmiU3@mid.individual.net...
How would a supermarket be able to micro-manage what goes on in third-party
slaughterhouses?
Presumably in the same way they must micromanage what goes on in
third party cornflakes and processed pea factories. So as to be reassured >>> that the workers involved aren't gobbing into the packets of cornflakes or >>> the
tins of peas.
Or worse.
Do they even do that?
The clear implication of your question was that there was something exceptional
about slaughterhouses.
When any major supermarket chain will be closely monitoring all their suppliers
be they slaughterhouses, or food manufacturers.
First because they're paying for food produced to the highest standards; and second because they don't need the bad publicity which might result if they didn't; as with the horsemeat scandal
Even with clothing they'll be monitoring manufacturers, for the use of child labour. As obviously it would be cheaper for the latter to employ 10 year olds
at 5p per hour; rather than 15 year olds at 10p per hour, as per the contract.
"Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote in message news:10k0d3o$3vc0d$1@dont-email.me...
Do feel free to provide the evidence that supply chain checks are more than >> ticking boxes on a supplier's say so.
Why should accepting anything on a supplier's say so, be any more reliable than
believing anything you read on UseNet ?
On 2026-01-11, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 11/01/2026 15:13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-11, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 11/01/2026 13:27, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 17:51, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 17:06, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 in message <msepbhFevmiU3@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
How would a supermarket be able to micro-manage what goes on in >>>>>>>>>>> third-party slaughterhouses?
You are wandering a long way off my original question relating >>>>>>>>>> to the law in respect of slaughter.
It's also fairly mind-boggling that he has neither heard, nor >>>>>>>>> apparently can conceive, of supply chain checks.
I assume this was said in amusement? There are no supply chain checks >>>>>>>> until such point that DEFRA out that beef isn't really beef.
If you think that UK supermarkets don't conduct any supplier audits >>>>>>> then you're simply wrong. But either way, it's still the answer to >>>>>>> JNugent's rather odd question.
You snipped the most relevant part of my post you were replying to: >>>>>>
An audit is where "Each point in the supply relies upon the previous >>>>>> supplier ticking a box and being honest"
No it isn't.
Do feel free to provide the evidence that supply chain checks are more >>>> than ticking boxes on a supplier's say so.
No thanks. Even if your highly-implausible, evidence-free claim that no
supplier audits ever involve anything other than looking at paperwork
was true - which it isn't - it wouldn't make any difference to the fact
that supermarkets *could* do more involved checks, and that is the
obvious answer to JNugent's peculiar question.
I see, so Tesco would audit it's suppliers to successfully ensure horse
meat isn't sold as beef.
No, Tesco *could* audit its suppliers to ensure that (to some degree of certainty depending on how much effort they wanted to put in). Why are
you having such repeated difficulties in understanding simple English?
And, having said that, since the word of god is immutable and
unquestionable,
On 11/01/2026 12:21 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 10/01/2026 in message <msg0baFl9uhU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 10/01/2026 01:33 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 10/01/2026 in message <msepbhFevmiU3@mid.individual.net> JNugent >>>>wrote:
On 09/01/2026 03:06 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 09/01/2026 12:20 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Simon Parker wrote:
Many supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to eat it since
I don't seem to have the right to demand meat that-a is slaughtered >>>>>>>>>>except-a in accordance with the religious-a exemptions.
I would appreciate any thoughts.
I commend to you the following article which refutes the claim that >>>>>>>>>"many supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to-a eat >>>>>>>>>it".
https://www.farmersguide.co.uk/business/food-drink/industry- reacts- to-
claims-about-halal-meat-in-uk-supermarkets/
Since this claim is the nexus of your question, removing the claim-a may
well remove the need for an answer to your question.
It's interesting but doesn't cover my question on what the law is.-a It
also says that non-stun killing is on the increase and the-a rationale
given conflicts with what an Imam has stated, that non--a stun killing-a
is not required at all by the Koran,
When supermarkets reply they are extraordinarily vague and don't seem to
understand the law.
Supermarkets don't do their own slaughtering, do they?
I have no idea but they are responsible for selling products in >>>>>>accordance with the law so they must know what the law is and that the >>>>>>product they sell complies with that law.
How would a supermarket be able to micro-manage what goes on in third- >>>>>party slaughterhouses?
You are wandering a long way off my original question relating to the-a >>>>law in respect of slaughter.
Not at all. Your recent post raised the question of whether retailers are >>>responsible for the manner of slaughter. You said (verbatim):
"... they are responsible for selling products in accordance with the law >>>so they must know what the law is and that the product they sell complies >>>with that law".
All I asked was how a supermarket could micro-manage what happens in >>>abbatoirs.
Why would a supermarket try and manage what goes in third-party >>>>slaughterhouses?
Presumably, in accordance with what you had said, in order to comply with >>>the law.
I am a bit puzzled, do you really think that each point in a supply chain >>is required to go back and check all previous points in that chain?
That is a good question and exactly along the lines which I was querying.
If they don't, how can they comply with the law except on relying upon >honest declarations and certification by the supplier.
I would think it is rather more likely they rely on the paperwork that >>comes with the goods surely?
That is what I was asking. If they (supermarkets and probably other meat >retailers) don't do their own slaughtering and don't have permanent >observers in the abbatoirs which supply them, they surely HAVE to merely >rely upon the certification by the relevant abbattoir.
I have now read through the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) >>>>Regulations 1995 and cannot find "the meat must be intended for >>>>consumption by Jewish or Muslim people", that seems to be in the >>>>guidelines only.
Anybody any thoughts on my original question?
No thoughts on your assertion (to the effect that) supermarkets are >>>responsible for slaughtering policies before their own point of supply?
You need to point out where I said that.
That's easy enough.
I asked:
"Supermarkets don't do their own slaughtering, do they?"
and you answered:
"I have no idea but they are responsible for selling products in
accordance with the law so they must know what the law is and that
the product they sell complies with that law".
Your line has now apparently softened on that and you accept that
retailers do not need to know how the product they retail was treated in
the slaughterhouse and may simply rely upon the word of their supplier
that all was done in accordance with the regulations.
After all, they cannot "know" that of their own direct knowledge unless
they have permanent observers in the supplying abbattoirs, can they?
On 11/01/2026 14:44, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I don't think anybody feels they have found anything, we are all seeking >>guidance and clarification at the moment and struggling because >>supermarkets are reluctant to answer questions about how food is killed.
Our objective is only to purchase meat that is slaughtered by the full- >>stun method which is non-recoverable, most of us on the grounds of humane >>slaughter but some people have said they object to having prayers from >>religions other than the one they follow uttered over their meat. At the >>moment there is a feeling that the law ignores our needs.
If the law states that animals must be stunned before slaughter, except in >very specific circumstances not met by supermarkets, then the obvious >conclusion is that the poor beasts were indeed stunned.
I imagine that some Muslims will not regard the meat as halal, but that's >not your concern.
Your concern is that the supermarkets are a bit vague answering your >questions about whether the animals have been stunned. The obvious
solution is to use a different source. Maybe, your high street butcher
will answer your questions, and maybe he'll be truthful.
I don't think anybody feels they have found anything, we are all seeking >>guidance and clarification at the moment and struggling because >>supermarkets are reluctant to answer questions about how food is killed.
They can only tell you - or anyone else - what the slaughterhouse has told >them.
On 11/01/2026 05:03 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-11, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/01/2026 03:13 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-11, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 11/01/2026 13:27, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 17:51, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 17:06, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 in message <msepbhFevmiU3@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
How would a supermarket be able to micro-manage what goes on in >>>>>>>>>>>> third-party slaughterhouses?
You are wandering a long way off my original question relating >>>>>>>>>>> to the law in respect of slaughter.
It's also fairly mind-boggling that he has neither heard, nor >>>>>>>>>> apparently can conceive, of supply chain checks.
I assume this was said in amusement? There are no supply chain checks >>>>>>>>> until such point that DEFRA out that beef isn't really beef.
If you think that UK supermarkets don't conduct any supplier audits >>>>>>>> then you're simply wrong. But either way, it's still the answer to >>>>>>>> JNugent's rather odd question.
You snipped the most relevant part of my post you were replying to: >>>>>>>
An audit is where "Each point in the supply relies upon the previous >>>>>>> supplier ticking a box and being honest"
No it isn't.
Do feel free to provide the evidence that supply chain checks are more >>>>> than ticking boxes on a supplier's say so.
No thanks. Even if your highly-implausible, evidence-free claim that no >>>> supplier audits ever involve anything other than looking at paperwork
was true - which it isn't - it wouldn't make any difference to the fact >>>> that supermarkets *could* do more involved checks, and that is the
obvious answer to JNugent's peculiar question.
There's your error.
I never asked whether supermarkets *could* do their own checks.
I asked whether they *do* their own checks.
No you didn't.
Ah... the usual...
I asked whether [supermarkets] *do* their own slaughtering or have
observers in the abbattoirs.
It's all still there above.
Why would you bother denying something that anyone, including you,
could verify by simply scrolling up the very post in which you were
denying it, where your question can still be seen in the quotes?
Exactly! Not once have I asked whether retailers *could* do their own checks. I asked one thing only: whether they do (in fact) make their own checks or observations.
We all know that they COULD do their own checks. That has never been the question.
On 11/01/2026 in message <mshsv5Fd5eU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 11/01/2026 12:21 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 10/01/2026 in message <msg0baFl9uhU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent
wrote:
On 10/01/2026 01:33 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 10/01/2026 in message <msepbhFevmiU3@mid.individual.net> JNugent >>>>> wrote:
On 09/01/2026 03:06 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 09/01/2026 12:20 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Simon Parker wrote:
Many supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am forced to >>>>>>>>>>> eat-a-a it since I don't seem to have the right to demand meat >>>>>>>>>>> that-a is-a slaughtered except-a in accordance with the >>>>>>>>>>> religious-a exemptions.
I would appreciate any thoughts.
I commend to you the following article which refutes the
claim-a-a that "many supermarkets only supply Halal meat so I am >>>>>>>>>> forced-a to-a eat it".
https://www.farmersguide.co.uk/business/food-drink/industry- >>>>>>>>>> reacts- to- claims-about-halal-meat-in-uk-supermarkets/
Since this claim is the nexus of your question, removing the >>>>>>>>>> claim-a may well remove the need for an answer to your question. >>>>>>>>It's interesting but doesn't cover my question on what the law >>>>>>>>> is.-a It also says that non-stun killing is on the increase and >>>>>>>>> the-a rationale given conflicts with what an Imam has stated, >>>>>>>>> that-a non--a stun killing is not required at all by the Koran, >>>>>>>>
When supermarkets reply they are extraordinarily vague and
don't-a-a seem to understand the law.
Supermarkets don't do their own slaughtering, do they?
I have no idea but they are responsible for selling products in >>>>>>> accordance with the law so they must know what the law is and
that-a-a the product they sell complies with that law.
How would a supermarket be able to micro-manage what goes on in
third- party slaughterhouses?
You are wandering a long way off my original question relating to
the law in respect of slaughter.
Not at all. Your recent post raised the question of whether
retailers-a are responsible for the manner of slaughter. You said
(verbatim):
"... they are responsible for selling products in accordance with
the-a law so they must know what the law is and that the product they >>>> sell-a complies with that law".
All I asked was how a supermarket could micro-manage what happens in
abbatoirs.
Why would a supermarket try and manage what goes in third-party
slaughterhouses?
Presumably, in accordance with what you had said, in order to
comply-a with the law.
I am a bit puzzled, do you really think that each point in a supply
chain is required to go back and check all previous points in that
chain?
That is a good question and exactly along the lines which I was querying.
If they don't, how can they comply with the law except on relying upon
honest declarations and certification by the supplier.
I would think it is rather more likely they rely on the paperwork
that comes with the goods surely?
That is what I was asking. If they (supermarkets and probably other
meat retailers) don't do their own slaughtering and don't have
permanent observers in the abbatoirs which supply them, they surely
HAVE to merely rely upon the certification by the relevant abbattoir.
I have now read through the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or
Killing) Regulations 1995 and cannot find "the meat must be
intended for consumption by Jewish or Muslim people", that seems to >>>>> be in the guidelines only.
Anybody any thoughts on my original question?
No thoughts on your assertion (to the effect that) supermarkets areYou need to point out where I said that.
responsible for slaughtering policies before their own point of supply? >>>
That's easy enough.
I asked:
"Supermarkets don't do their own slaughtering, do they?"
and you answered:
"I have no idea but they are responsible for selling products in
accordance with the law so they must know what the law is and that
the product they sell complies with that law".
Your line has now apparently softened on that and you accept that
retailers do not need to know how the product they retail was treated
in the slaughterhouse and may simply rely upon the word of their
supplier that all was done in accordance with the regulations.
After all, they cannot "know" that of their own direct knowledge
unless they have permanent observers in the supplying abbattoirs, can
they?
I think you have inferred something from what I said that wasn't
implied. To ensure a product complies with the law would involve a paper check I would have thought. If you sell bolts you wouldn't go and watch
your supplier make them would you?
On 11/01/2026 in message <msht2tFd5eU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
I don't think anybody feels they have found anything, we are all
seeking guidance and clarification at the moment and struggling
because supermarkets are reluctant to answer questions about how food
is killed.
They can only tell you - or anyone else - what the slaughterhouse has
told them.
Yes, of course.
On 11/01/2026 03:13 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-11, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 11/01/2026 13:27, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 17:51, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 17:06, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 in message <msepbhFevmiU3@mid.individual.net> JNugent >>>>>>>>> wrote:
How would a supermarket be able to micro-manage what goes on in >>>>>>>>>> third-party slaughterhouses?
You are wandering a long way off my original question relating >>>>>>>>> to the law in respect of slaughter.
It's also fairly mind-boggling that he has neither heard, nor
apparently can conceive, of supply chain checks.
I assume this was said in amusement? There are no supply chain checks >>>>>>> until such point that DEFRA out that beef isn't really beef.
If you think that UK supermarkets don't conduct any supplier audits >>>>>> then you're simply wrong. But either way, it's still the answer to >>>>>> JNugent's rather odd question.
You snipped the most relevant part of my post you were replying to:
An audit is where "Each point in the supply relies upon the previous >>>>> supplier ticking a box and being honest"
No it isn't.
Do feel free to provide the evidence that supply chain checks are more
than ticking boxes on a supplier's say so.
No thanks. Even if your highly-implausible, evidence-free claim that no
supplier audits ever involve anything other than looking at paperwork
was true - which it isn't - it wouldn't make any difference to the fact
that supermarkets *could* do more involved checks, and that is the
obvious answer to JNugent's peculiar question.
There's your error.
I never asked whether supermarkets *could* do their own checks.
I asked whether they *do* their own checks.
On 11/01/2026 04:18 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msg0eoFl9uhU3@mid.individual.net...
On 10/01/2026 02:41 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msepbhFevmiU3@mid.individual.net...
How would a supermarket be able to micro-manage what goes on in
third-party
slaughterhouses?
Presumably in the same way they must micromanage what goes on in
third party cornflakes and processed pea factories. So as to be reassured >>>> that the workers involved aren't gobbing into the packets of cornflakes or >>>> the
tins of peas.
Or worse.
Do they even do that?
The clear implication of your question was that there was something
exceptional
about slaughterhouses.
No. Not really. We are all well aware of the regulations that apply. What has not been clear is whether retailers run their own on-the-spot checks at slaughterhouses or rely upon a chain of certification.
I think you have inferred something from what I said that wasn't implied. >>To ensure a product complies with the law would involve a paper check I >>would have thought. If you sell bolts you wouldn't go and watch your >>supplier make them would you?
If that is the case, then all is well.
There is no way that a supermarket, or any retailer, could run their own >on-the-spot checks on abattoir practise. Their compliance with the law HAS >to be a secondhand thing, reliant upon what the abattoir says.
On 11/01/2026 09:19 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 11/01/2026 in message <msht2tFd5eU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
I don't think anybody feels they have found anything, we are all seeking >>>>guidance and clarification at the moment and struggling because >>>>supermarkets are reluctant to answer questions about how food is >>>>killed.
They can only tell you - or anyone else - what the slaughterhouse has >>>told them.
Yes, of course.
And in relying upon that, they are complying with the law.
Easy.
There is no way that a supermarket, or any retailer, could run their own on-the-spot checks on abattoir practise. Their compliance with the law HAS to
be a secondhand thing, reliant upon what the abattoir says.
On 12/01/2026 in message <msit8pF5kvtU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
I think you have inferred something from what I said that wasn't implied. >>>To ensure a product complies with the law would involve a paper check I >>>would have thought. If you sell bolts you wouldn't go and watch your >>>supplier make them would you?
If that is the case, then all is well.
There is no way that a supermarket, or any retailer, could run their own >>on-the-spot checks on abattoir practise. Their compliance with the law HAS >>to be a secondhand thing, reliant upon what the abattoir says.
I had always expected they would rely on the paperwork, not sure how we ended up down a route that expected otherwise. They could run their own on-the-spot checks on abattoir practise of course, there's no reason why not.
On 12/01/2026 in message <msitabF5kvtU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 11/01/2026 09:19 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 11/01/2026 in message <msht2tFd5eU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote: >>>
I don't think anybody feels they have found anything, we are all seeking >>>>> guidance and clarification at the moment and struggling because
supermarkets are reluctant to answer questions about how food is
killed.
They can only tell you - or anyone else - what the slaughterhouse has
told them.
Yes, of course.
And in relying upon that, they are complying with the law.
Easy.
But doesn't cover supermarkets' reluctance to answer questions about how
food is killed.
On 12 Jan 2026 at 10:41:30 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >wrote:
On 12/01/2026 in message <msitabF5kvtU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 11/01/2026 09:19 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 11/01/2026 in message <msht2tFd5eU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent >>>>wrote:
I don't think anybody feels they have found anything, we are all >>>>>>seeking
guidance and clarification at the moment and struggling because >>>>>>supermarkets are reluctant to answer questions about how food is >>>>>>killed.
They can only tell you - or anyone else - what the slaughterhouse has >>>>>told them.
Yes, of course.
And in relying upon that, they are complying with the law.
Easy.
But doesn't cover supermarkets' reluctance to answer questions about how >>food is killed.
It is possible that the supermarkets do not ask for this information. If
the
slaughterhouse certifies that they comply with the law relating to meat for >human consumption then the supermarket may not need to know the precise >method
of slaughter, unless they plan to market the meat as meeting halal or
kosher
rules.
Personally, I feel that humane treatment of the animals before slaughter, >and
calm conditions for the actual killing are probably much more important
than
the exact method of slaughter; but equally hard to obtain reassurance
about.
I suppose that if enough people demand information about the precise
method of
slaughter the supermarkets will feel that they need to provide it. Perhaps >this is something that Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson could campaign for? >They would have to be careful not to appear anti-semitic though - this is >not
a position they wish to adopt in public at the moment.
Your concern is that the supermarkets are a bit vague answering your
questions about whether the animals have been stunned. The obvious
solution is to use a different source. Maybe, your high street butcher
will answer your questions, and maybe he'll be truthful.
Yes, people have found that to be the case. To put it to the test I
would need to find a high street butcher, I can't remember the last time
I went to a shop to buy anything!
On 2026-01-11, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/01/2026 05:03 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-11, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/01/2026 03:13 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-11, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 11/01/2026 13:27, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 17:51, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 17:06, Jon Ribbens wrote:If you think that UK supermarkets don't conduct any supplier audits >>>>>>>>> then you're simply wrong. But either way, it's still the answer to >>>>>>>>> JNugent's rather odd question.
On 2026-01-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/01/2026 in message <msepbhFevmiU3@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
How would a supermarket be able to micro-manage what goes on in >>>>>>>>>>>>> third-party slaughterhouses?
You are wandering a long way off my original question relating >>>>>>>>>>>> to the law in respect of slaughter.
It's also fairly mind-boggling that he has neither heard, nor >>>>>>>>>>> apparently can conceive, of supply chain checks.
I assume this was said in amusement? There are no supply chain checks
until such point that DEFRA out that beef isn't really beef. >>>>>>>>>
You snipped the most relevant part of my post you were replying to: >>>>>>>>
An audit is where "Each point in the supply relies upon the previous >>>>>>>> supplier ticking a box and being honest"
No it isn't.
Do feel free to provide the evidence that supply chain checks are more >>>>>> than ticking boxes on a supplier's say so.
No thanks. Even if your highly-implausible, evidence-free claim that no >>>>> supplier audits ever involve anything other than looking at paperwork >>>>> was true - which it isn't - it wouldn't make any difference to the fact >>>>> that supermarkets *could* do more involved checks, and that is the
obvious answer to JNugent's peculiar question.
There's your error.
I never asked whether supermarkets *could* do their own checks.
I asked whether they *do* their own checks.
No you didn't.
Ah... the usual...
I asked whether [supermarkets] *do* their own slaughtering or have
observers in the abbattoirs.
It's all still there above.
Why would you bother denying something that anyone, including you,
could verify by simply scrolling up the very post in which you were
denying it, where your question can still be seen in the quotes?
Exactly! Not once have I asked whether retailers *could* do their own
checks. I asked one thing only: whether they do (in fact) make their own
checks or observations.
We all know that they COULD do their own checks. That has never been the
question.
You appear to have somehow forgotten that you posed this question:
How would a supermarket be able to micro-manage what goes on in
third-party slaughterhouses?
On 12/01/2026 in message <msit8pF5kvtU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
I think you have inferred something from what I said that wasn't
implied. To ensure a product complies with the law would involve a
paper-a check I would have thought. If you sell bolts you wouldn't go
and watch-a your supplier make them would you?
If that is the case, then all is well.
There is no way that a supermarket, or any retailer, could run their
own on-the-spot checks on abattoir practise. Their compliance with the
law HAS to be a secondhand thing, reliant upon what the abattoir says.
I had always expected they would rely on the paperwork, not sure how we ended up down a route that expected otherwise. They could run their own on-the-spot checks on abattoir practise of course, there's no reason why not.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:msit8pF5kvtU1@mid.individual.net...
There is no way that a supermarket, or any retailer, could run their own
on-the-spot checks on abattoir practise. Their compliance with the law HAS to
be a secondhand thing, reliant upon what the abattoir says.
to repeat
" reliant upon what the abattoir says"
.
quote:
The Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995
Supervision of premises
8.-(1) The Minister may designate veterinary surgeons as OVSs and shall,
in relation to any premises, appoint one or more OVSs, in each case to be
an authorised officer of the Minister authorised to act in relation to the examination and seizure of meat, to provide the health certification of fresh meat and to be responsible for the following functions in relation to those premises-
(a)the ante-mortem health inspection of animals in accordance with Schedule 8;
(b)the post-mortem health inspection of slaughtered animals in accordance with
Schedule 10;
(c)where appropriate, the examination of the fresh meat of swine and horses for
trichinellosis in accordance with paragraphs 12 and 13 of Part IX of Schedule 10;
(d)the health marking of fresh meat in accordance with Schedule 12; and
(e)securing the observance of the requirements of Schedules 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
9,
11, 13, 14, 15 and 17.
:unquote
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1995/539/regulation/8/made
On 12/01/2026 in message <msitabF5kvtU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 11/01/2026 09:19 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 11/01/2026 in message <msht2tFd5eU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent
wrote:
I don't think anybody feels they have found anything, we are all
seeking guidance and clarification at the moment and struggling
because supermarkets are reluctant to answer questions about how
food-a is killed.
They can only tell you - or anyone else - what the slaughterhouse
has told them.
Yes, of course.
And in relying upon that, they are complying with the law.
Easy.
But doesn't cover supermarkets' reluctance to answer questions about how food-a is killed.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:msht7aFe28U1@mid.individual.net...> No you didn't.
On 11/01/2026 03:13 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-11, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 11/01/2026 13:27, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 17:51, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 17:06, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 in message <msepbhFevmiU3@mid.individual.net> JNugent >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
How would a supermarket be able to micro-manage what goes on in >>>>>>>>>>> third-party slaughterhouses?
You are wandering a long way off my original question relating >>>>>>>>>> to the law in respect of slaughter.
It's also fairly mind-boggling that he has neither heard, nor >>>>>>>>> apparently can conceive, of supply chain checks.
I assume this was said in amusement? There are no supply chain checks >>>>>>>> until such point that DEFRA out that beef isn't really beef.
If you think that UK supermarkets don't conduct any supplier audits >>>>>>> then you're simply wrong. But either way, it's still the answer to >>>>>>> JNugent's rather odd question.
You snipped the most relevant part of my post you were replying to: >>>>>>
An audit is where "Each point in the supply relies upon the previous >>>>>> supplier ticking a box and being honest"
No it isn't.
Do feel free to provide the evidence that supply chain checks are more >>>> than ticking boxes on a supplier's say so.
No thanks. Even if your highly-implausible, evidence-free claim that no
supplier audits ever involve anything other than looking at paperwork
was true - which it isn't - it wouldn't make any difference to the fact
that supermarkets *could* do more involved checks, and that is the
obvious answer to JNugent's peculiar question.
There's your error.
I never asked whether supermarkets *could* do their own checks.
I asked whether they *do* their own checks.
You asked -
" How would a supermarket be able to micro-manage what goes on in
third-party slaughterhouses?"
Which is a hypothetical question; not a factual one
What you were asking is how they would do it, *if* they decided to do so.
Not whether or not they've decided to do so, or not.
So that one answer to your question might well be that they *could* install their own permanent inspector.
But that doesn't necessarily imply either that they actually do; or that
they don't
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:msi774F22unU1@mid.individual.net...
On 11/01/2026 04:18 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msg0eoFl9uhU3@mid.individual.net...
On 10/01/2026 02:41 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msepbhFevmiU3@mid.individual.net...
How would a supermarket be able to micro-manage what goes on in
third-party
slaughterhouses?
Presumably in the same way they must micromanage what goes on in
third party cornflakes and processed pea factories. So as to be reassured >>>>> that the workers involved aren't gobbing into the packets of cornflakes or
the
tins of peas.
Or worse.
Do they even do that?
The clear implication of your question was that there was something
exceptional
about slaughterhouses.
No. Not really. We are all well aware of the regulations that apply. What has
not been clear is whether retailers run their own on-the-spot checks at
slaughterhouses or rely upon a chain of certification.
But, to return to my original question, why would the likes fo say Tesco
want to do "more" on the spot checks at slaughterhouses than they would already do say, at the cereal manufacturers who make their own brand cornflakes
?
Where presumably the scope for cutting corners, in terms of say hygeine
and food safety is just as great ?
Whether they actually do or not, is another matter entirely
As if they can't tell simply by examining the end product whether an animal has been slughtered humanely of not, neither can they tell by examining the end product whether its cornflakes ot sausages whether all a firm's
employees always wash their hands after visting the toilet. Or even wash their hands at any time, in some cases.
So that I can only ask you again, what's so special about slaughterhouses ?
Rest snipped.
The labels on the meat give the information but it's difficult for a
consumer to interpret, I suspect the supermarkets are just as confused as consumers.
Thoughts at the moment are to seek clear labelling that consumers can understand with a long term view to banning non-stun slaughter, after all
our current government are strong on animal welfare isn't it?
I don't think there's any chance of antisemitism, however there is very strong antiislamism since the talk is 99% about Halal food!
On 12/01/2026 in message <2526067480.91b20ac5@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 12 Jan 2026 at 10:41:30 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 12/01/2026 in message <msitabF5kvtU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote: >>>
On 11/01/2026 09:19 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 11/01/2026 in message <msht2tFd5eU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent
wrote:
I don't think anybody feels they have found anything, we are all >>>>>>> seeking
guidance and clarification at the moment and struggling because >>>>>>> supermarkets are reluctant to answer questions about how food is >>>>>>> killed.
They can only tell you - or anyone else - what the slaughterhouse has >>>>>> told them.
Yes, of course.
And in relying upon that, they are complying with the law.
Easy.
But doesn't cover supermarkets' reluctance to answer questions about how >>> food is killed.
It is possible that the supermarkets do not ask for this information. If
the
slaughterhouse certifies that they comply with the law relating to meat for >> human consumption then the supermarket may not need to know the precise
method
of slaughter, unless they plan to market the meat as meeting halal or
kosher
rules.
Personally, I feel that humane treatment of the animals before slaughter,
and
calm conditions for the actual killing are probably much more important
than
the exact method of slaughter; but equally hard to obtain reassurance
about.
I suppose that if enough people demand information about the precise
method of
slaughter the supermarkets will feel that they need to provide it. Perhaps >> this is something that Nigel Farage or Tommy Robinson could campaign for?
They would have to be careful not to appear anti-semitic though - this is
not
a position they wish to adopt in public at the moment.
The labels on the meat give the information but it's difficult for a
consumer to interpret, I suspect the supermarkets are just as confused as consumers.
Thoughts at the moment are to seek clear labelling that consumers can understand with a long term view to banning non-stun slaughter, after all
our current government are strong on animal welfare isn't it?
I don't think there's any chance of antisemitism, however there is very strong antiislamism since the talk is 99% about Halal food!
On 2026-01-12, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
The labels on the meat give the information but it's difficult for a
consumer to interpret, I suspect the supermarkets are just as confused as
consumers.
Thoughts at the moment are to seek clear labelling that consumers can
understand with a long term view to banning non-stun slaughter, after all
our current government are strong on animal welfare isn't it?
I don't think there's any chance of antisemitism, however there is very
strong antiislamism since the talk is 99% about Halal food!
You don't "think there's any chance of antisemitism" if your "long term
view" is to end up legally requiring Jews to either to become vegetarian
or to stop observing their religion?
I don't think there's any chance of antisemitism, however there is very >>strong antiislamism since the talk is 99% about Halal food!
That was part of my point; if "the talk" was mainly concerned about animal >welfare rather than the prevalence of Muslims in this country wanting halal >meat then the talkers should be equally concerned with kosher slaughter.
But
apparently that does not create so much "talk"!
On 2026-01-12, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
The labels on the meat give the information but it's difficult for a >>consumer to interpret, I suspect the supermarkets are just as confused as >>consumers.
Thoughts at the moment are to seek clear labelling that consumers can >>understand with a long term view to banning non-stun slaughter, after all >>our current government are strong on animal welfare isn't it?
I don't think there's any chance of antisemitism, however there is very >>strong antiislamism since the talk is 99% about Halal food!
You don't "think there's any chance of antisemitism" if your "long term
view" is to end up legally requiring Jews to either to become vegetarian
or to stop observing their religion?
On 11/01/2026 21:21, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Your concern is that the supermarkets are a bit vague answering your >>>questions about whether the animals have been stunned. The obvious >>>solution is to use a different source. Maybe, your high street butcher >>>will answer your questions, and maybe he'll be truthful.
Yes, people have found that to be the case. To put it to the test I would >>need to find a high street butcher, I can't remember the last time I went >>to a shop to buy anything!
Your issue is really that you want some sort of marking system that states >whether the animal has been stunned or not - for good reason in my view. >Your questions about halal are rather irrelevant, because halal does not >necessarily mean unstunned.
Incidentally, in its day, halal and kosher slaughter were as humane as it >was possible to be. The knife should be so sharp that the cut is not
painful for the animal. Things have moved on from there, though, and >religions tend to be stuck in the past.
On 12/01/2026 10:41 am, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 12/01/2026 in message <msitabF5kvtU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 11/01/2026 09:19 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 11/01/2026 in message <msht2tFd5eU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent >>>>wrote:
I don't think anybody feels they have found anything, we are all seeking
guidance and clarification at the moment and struggling because >>>>>>supermarkets are reluctant to answer questions about how food-a is >>>>>>killed.
They can only tell you - or anyone else - what the slaughterhouse has >>>>>told them.
Yes, of course.
And in relying upon that, they are complying with the law.
Easy.
But doesn't cover supermarkets' reluctance to answer questions about how >>food-a is killed.
What reluctance would that be?
Are you sure they have the information at that level of granularity?
On 12/01/2026 in message
<slrn10maln4.1cvi.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-12, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
The labels on the meat give the information but it's difficult for a >>>consumer to interpret, I suspect the supermarkets are just as confused as >>>consumers.
Thoughts at the moment are to seek clear labelling that consumers can >>>understand with a long term view to banning non-stun slaughter, after all >>>our current government are strong on animal welfare isn't it?
I don't think there's any chance of antisemitism, however there is very >>>strong antiislamism since the talk is 99% about Halal food!
You don't "think there's any chance of antisemitism" if your "long term >>view" is to end up legally requiring Jews to either to become vegetarian
or to stop observing their religion?
I didn't say that. I said "with a long term view to banning non-stun slaughter".
On 12/01/2026 in message <mskenbFdgs2U4@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 12/01/2026 10:41 am, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 12/01/2026 in message <msitabF5kvtU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote: >>>>On 11/01/2026 09:19 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 11/01/2026 in message <msht2tFd5eU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent >>>>>wrote:
I don't think anybody feels they have found anything, we are all >>>>>>>seeking guidance and clarification at the moment and struggling >>>>>>>because supermarkets are reluctant to answer questions about how >>>>>>>food-a is killed.
They can only tell you - or anyone else - what the slaughterhouse >>>>>>has told them.
Yes, of course.
And in relying upon that, they are complying with the law.
Easy.
But doesn't cover supermarkets' reluctance to answer questions about how >>>food-a is killed.
What reluctance would that be?
Are you sure they have the information at that level of granularity?
They have the labels and since they supply food marked "Halal" or "Kosher" they must have the knowledge for their own protection.
On 12/01/2026 in message <mskenbFdgs2U4@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 12/01/2026 10:41 am, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 12/01/2026 in message <msitabF5kvtU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote: >>>
On 11/01/2026 09:19 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 11/01/2026 in message <msht2tFd5eU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent
wrote:
I don't think anybody feels they have found anything, we are all seeking
guidance and clarification at the moment and struggling because >>>>>>> supermarkets are reluctant to answer questions about how food is >>>>>>> killed.
They can only tell you - or anyone else - what the slaughterhouse has >>>>>> told them.
Yes, of course.
And in relying upon that, they are complying with the law.
Easy.
But doesn't cover supermarkets' reluctance to answer questions about how >>> food is killed.
What reluctance would that be?
Are you sure they have the information at that level of granularity?
They have the labels and since they supply food marked "Halal" or "Kosher" they must have the knowledge for their own protection.
On 12/01/2026 in message <mskenbFdgs2U4@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 12/01/2026 10:41 am, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 12/01/2026 in message <msitabF5kvtU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent
wrote:
On 11/01/2026 09:19 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 11/01/2026 in message <msht2tFd5eU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent
wrote:
I don't think anybody feels they have found anything, we are
all-a-a seeking guidance and clarification at the moment and
struggling-a-a because supermarkets are reluctant to answer
questions about how-a food-a is killed.
They can only tell you - or anyone else - what the slaughterhouse >>>>>> has told them.
Yes, of course.
And in relying upon that, they are complying with the law.
Easy.
But doesn't cover supermarkets' reluctance to answer questions about
how food-a is killed.
What reluctance would that be?
Are you sure they have the information at that level of granularity?
They have the labels and since they supply food marked "Halal" or
"Kosher" they must have the knowledge for their own protection.
On 2026-01-12, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 12/01/2026 in message <mskenbFdgs2U4@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote: >>>On 12/01/2026 10:41 am, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 12/01/2026 in message <msitabF5kvtU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent >>>>wrote:
On 11/01/2026 09:19 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 11/01/2026 in message <msht2tFd5eU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent >>>>>>wrote:
I don't think anybody feels they have found anything, we are all >>>>>>>>seeking guidance and clarification at the moment and struggling >>>>>>>>because supermarkets are reluctant to answer questions about how >>>>>>>>food-a is killed.
They can only tell you - or anyone else - what the slaughterhouse >>>>>>>has told them.
Yes, of course.
And in relying upon that, they are complying with the law.
Easy.
But doesn't cover supermarkets' reluctance to answer questions about how >>>>food-a is killed.
What reluctance would that be?
Are you sure they have the information at that level of granularity?
They have the labels and since they supply food marked "Halal" or "Kosher" >>they must have the knowledge for their own protection.
That's a classic logical fallacy known as "affirming the consequent".
The consumer product having a halal label on implies (more or less)
that animals involved were slaughtered in a halal manner. This does
not mean that the animals being slaughtered in a halal manner implies
that the consumer product has a halal label.
On 12/01/2026 09:08 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 12/01/2026 in message <mskenbFdgs2U4@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 12/01/2026 10:41 am, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 12/01/2026 in message <msitabF5kvtU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent >>>>wrote:
On 11/01/2026 09:19 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 11/01/2026 in message <msht2tFd5eU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent >>>>>>wrote:
I don't think anybody feels they have found anything, we are all-a-a >>>>>>>>seeking guidance and clarification at the moment and struggling-a-a >>>>>>>>because supermarkets are reluctant to answer questions about how-a food-a
is killed.
They can only tell you - or anyone else - what the slaughterhouse has >>>>>>>told them.
Yes, of course.
And in relying upon that, they are complying with the law.
Easy.
But doesn't cover supermarkets' reluctance to answer questions about how >>>>food-a is killed.
What reluctance would that be?
Are you sure they have the information at that level of granularity?
They have the labels and since they supply food marked "Halal" or >>"Kosher" they must have the knowledge for their own protection.
But as is always the case with "certification", that knowledge is
secondhand and reliant upon the accuracy and truthfulness of those
providing it.
On 2026-01-12, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 12/01/2026 in message
<slrn10maln4.1cvi.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-12, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
The labels on the meat give the information but it's difficult for a >>>>consumer to interpret, I suspect the supermarkets are just as confused >>>>as
consumers.
Thoughts at the moment are to seek clear labelling that consumers can >>>>understand with a long term view to banning non-stun slaughter, after >>>>all
our current government are strong on animal welfare isn't it?
I don't think there's any chance of antisemitism, however there is very >>>>strong antiislamism since the talk is 99% about Halal food!
You don't "think there's any chance of antisemitism" if your "long term >>>view" is to end up legally requiring Jews to either to become vegetarian >>>or to stop observing their religion?
I didn't say that. I said "with a long term view to banning non-stun >>slaughter".
You somehow don't realise that the one implies the other?
On 12/01/2026 in message
<slrn10marju.1cvi.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-12, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 12/01/2026 in message >>><slrn10maln4.1cvi.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-12, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
The labels on the meat give the information but it's difficult for a >>>>>consumer to interpret, I suspect the supermarkets are just as confused >>>>>as
consumers.
Thoughts at the moment are to seek clear labelling that consumers can >>>>>understand with a long term view to banning non-stun slaughter, after >>>>>all
our current government are strong on animal welfare isn't it?
I don't think there's any chance of antisemitism, however there is very >>>>>strong antiislamism since the talk is 99% about Halal food!
You don't "think there's any chance of antisemitism" if your "long term >>>>view" is to end up legally requiring Jews to either to become vegetarian >>>>or to stop observing their religion?
I didn't say that. I said "with a long term view to banning non-stun >>>slaughter".
You somehow don't realise that the one implies the other?
If a religion called religion1 existed that allowed men to marry 9 year
old girls and some of its members lived in the UK would it be antireligion1ic to tell them the can't marry little girls here?
On 11/01/2026 11:42 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msht7aFe28U1@mid.individual.net...
On 11/01/2026 03:13 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:No you didn't.
On 2026-01-11, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 11/01/2026 13:27, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 17:51, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 17:06, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 in message <msepbhFevmiU3@mid.individual.net> JNugent >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
How would a supermarket be able to micro-manage what goes on in >>>>>>>>>>>> third-party slaughterhouses?
You are wandering a long way off my original question relating >>>>>>>>>>> to the law in respect of slaughter.
It's also fairly mind-boggling that he has neither heard, nor >>>>>>>>>> apparently can conceive, of supply chain checks.
I assume this was said in amusement? There are no supply chain checks >>>>>>>>> until such point that DEFRA out that beef isn't really beef.
If you think that UK supermarkets don't conduct any supplier audits >>>>>>>> then you're simply wrong. But either way, it's still the answer to >>>>>>>> JNugent's rather odd question.
You snipped the most relevant part of my post you were replying to: >>>>>>>
An audit is where "Each point in the supply relies upon the previous >>>>>>> supplier ticking a box and being honest"
No it isn't.
Do feel free to provide the evidence that supply chain checks are more >>>>> than ticking boxes on a supplier's say so.
No thanks. Even if your highly-implausible, evidence-free claim that no >>>> supplier audits ever involve anything other than looking at paperwork
was true - which it isn't - it wouldn't make any difference to the fact >>>> that supermarkets *could* do more involved checks, and that is the
obvious answer to JNugent's peculiar question.
There's your error.
I never asked whether supermarkets *could* do their own checks.
I asked whether they *do* their own checks.
You asked -
" How would a supermarket be able to micro-manage what goes on in
third-party slaughterhouses?"
That was a long way down-thread from the initial question as to *whether* supermarkets do their own at-site checks, and came after a certain amount of reluctance to answer that question.
Which is a hypothetical question; not a factual one
What you were asking is how they would do it, *if* they decided to do so.
The question was designed to check whether the PP even believed that supermarkets were under some sort of obligation to have on-site observers at slaughterhouses and were breaking "the law" if they didn't.
But doesn't cover supermarkets' reluctance to answer questions about how food is killed.
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >news:xn0pkox0t42k6px00c@news.individual.net...
But doesn't cover supermarkets' reluctance to answer questions about how >>food
is killed.
Indeed.
After being stunned, and hopefully killed, the cattle and pigs are then
hoist upside down on a moving belt* ; to be then spit open so as to allow
the blood to drain which is collected for subsequent use in black puddings. >Then their entrails and internal organs will be torn out; to be
subsequently
minced up for use sausages, burgers, pork pies, etc. At the end of the line >their heads tails and hooves will be removed. Hint: cheaper lines of >sausages, pork pies and burgers
It really makes you wonder why they don't have posters up in the
supermarkets along with colour photographs explaining all this, doesn't it
?
Sales would probably go through the roof
bb
* The inspiration for the moving assembly lines adopted by Henry Ford. >Chicago being the meat processing capital of the world.
On 2026-01-13, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 12/01/2026 in message
<slrn10marju.1cvi.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-12, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 12/01/2026 in message >>>><slrn10maln4.1cvi.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote: >>>>>On 2026-01-12, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
The labels on the meat give the information but it's difficult for a >>>>>>consumer to interpret, I suspect the supermarkets are just as confused >>>>>>as
consumers.
Thoughts at the moment are to seek clear labelling that consumers can >>>>>>understand with a long term view to banning non-stun slaughter, after >>>>>>all
our current government are strong on animal welfare isn't it?
I don't think there's any chance of antisemitism, however there is very >>>>>>
strong antiislamism since the talk is 99% about Halal food!
You don't "think there's any chance of antisemitism" if your "long term >>>>>view" is to end up legally requiring Jews to either to become >>>>>vegetarian
or to stop observing their religion?
I didn't say that. I said "with a long term view to banning non-stun >>>>slaughter".
You somehow don't realise that the one implies the other?
If a religion called religion1 existed that allowed men to marry 9 year
old girls and some of its members lived in the UK would it be >>antireligion1ic to tell them the can't marry little girls here?
Is that your way of avoiding saying you now realise you made a mistake?
On 12/01/2026 in message
<slrn10marrb.1cvi.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-12, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 12/01/2026 in message <mskenbFdgs2U4@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote: >>>> On 12/01/2026 10:41 am, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 12/01/2026 in message <msitabF5kvtU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent
wrote:
On 11/01/2026 09:19 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 11/01/2026 in message <msht2tFd5eU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent >>>>>>> wrote:
I don't think anybody feels they have found anything, we are all >>>>>>>>> seeking guidance and clarification at the moment and struggling >>>>>>>>> because supermarkets are reluctant to answer questions about how >>>>>>>>> food is killed.
They can only tell you - or anyone else - what the slaughterhouse >>>>>>>> has told them.
Yes, of course.
And in relying upon that, they are complying with the law.
Easy.
But doesn't cover supermarkets' reluctance to answer questions about how >>>>> food is killed.
What reluctance would that be?
Are you sure they have the information at that level of granularity?
They have the labels and since they supply food marked "Halal" or "Kosher" >>> they must have the knowledge for their own protection.
That's a classic logical fallacy known as "affirming the consequent".
The consumer product having a halal label on implies (more or less)
that animals involved were slaughtered in a halal manner. This does
not mean that the animals being slaughtered in a halal manner implies
that the consumer product has a halal label.
It's more detailed than that which is where the problems arise for
consumers. The meat has codes which enables the kill date and abattoir to
be identified which the supermarket can use but are meaningless to
consumers.
If a religion called religion1 existed that allowed men to marry 9 year
old girls and some of its members lived in the UK would it be
antireligion1ic to tell them the can't marry little girls here?
Is that your way of avoiding saying you now realise you made a mistake?
On 13 Jan 2026 at 08:57:43 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >wrote:
On 12/01/2026 in message
<slrn10marrb.1cvi.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-12, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 12/01/2026 in message <mskenbFdgs2U4@mid.individual.net> JNugent >>>>wrote:
On 12/01/2026 10:41 am, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 12/01/2026 in message <msitabF5kvtU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent >>>>>>wrote:
On 11/01/2026 09:19 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 11/01/2026 in message <msht2tFd5eU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent >>>>>>>>wrote:
I don't think anybody feels they have found anything, we are all >>>>>>>>>>seeking guidance and clarification at the moment and struggling >>>>>>>>>>because supermarkets are reluctant to answer questions about how >>>>>>>>>>food is killed.
They can only tell you - or anyone else - what the slaughterhouse >>>>>>>>>has told them.
Yes, of course.
And in relying upon that, they are complying with the law.
Easy.
But doesn't cover supermarkets' reluctance to answer questions about >>>>>>how
food is killed.
What reluctance would that be?
Are you sure they have the information at that level of granularity?
They have the labels and since they supply food marked "Halal" or >>>>"Kosher"
they must have the knowledge for their own protection.
That's a classic logical fallacy known as "affirming the consequent".
The consumer product having a halal label on implies (more or less)
that animals involved were slaughtered in a halal manner. This does
not mean that the animals being slaughtered in a halal manner implies >>>that the consumer product has a halal label.
It's more detailed than that which is where the problems arise for >>consumers. The meat has codes which enables the kill date and abattoir to >>be identified which the supermarket can use but are meaningless to >>consumers.
Knowing the date and the abattoir doesn't necessarily tell you whether the >animal was stunned before killing. Are you claiming there is already a code >for that?
If a religion called religion1 existed that allowed men to marry 9 year
old girls and some of its members lived in the UK would it be
antireligion1ic to tell them the can't marry little girls here?
Is that your way of avoiding saying you now realise you made a mistake?
He is making the obvious point that religions have to behave within the constraints of secular law.
On 13/01/2026 in message
<slrn10mc987.1cvi.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-13, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 12/01/2026 in message >>><slrn10marju.1cvi.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-12, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 12/01/2026 in message >>>>><slrn10maln4.1cvi.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote: >>>>>>On 2026-01-12, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
The labels on the meat give the information but it's difficult for a >>>>>>>consumer to interpret, I suspect the supermarkets are just as confused >>>>>>>as
consumers.
Thoughts at the moment are to seek clear labelling that consumers can >>>>>>>understand with a long term view to banning non-stun slaughter, after >>>>>>>all
our current government are strong on animal welfare isn't it?
I don't think there's any chance of antisemitism, however there is very >>>>>>>
strong antiislamism since the talk is 99% about Halal food!
You don't "think there's any chance of antisemitism" if your "long term >>>>>>view" is to end up legally requiring Jews to either to become >>>>>>vegetarian
or to stop observing their religion?
I didn't say that. I said "with a long term view to banning non-stun >>>>>slaughter".
You somehow don't realise that the one implies the other?
If a religion called religion1 existed that allowed men to marry 9 year >>>old girls and some of its members lived in the UK would it be >>>antireligion1ic to tell them the can't marry little girls here?
Is that your way of avoiding saying you now realise you made a mistake?
No. I am seeking a comparison, can you answer my question?
On 13/01/2026 in message <0668959939.6fb006b4@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 13 Jan 2026 at 08:57:43 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 12/01/2026 in message
<slrn10marrb.1cvi.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-12, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 12/01/2026 in message <mskenbFdgs2U4@mid.individual.net> JNugent
wrote:
On 12/01/2026 10:41 am, Jeff Gaines wrote:They have the labels and since they supply food marked "Halal" or
On 12/01/2026 in message <msitabF5kvtU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent >>>>>>> wrote:
On 11/01/2026 09:19 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 11/01/2026 in message <msht2tFd5eU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent >>>>>>>>> wrote:
I don't think anybody feels they have found anything, we are all >>>>>>>>>>> seeking guidance and clarification at the moment and struggling >>>>>>>>>>> because supermarkets are reluctant to answer questions about how >>>>>>>>>>> food is killed.
They can only tell you - or anyone else - what the slaughterhouse >>>>>>>>>> has told them.
Yes, of course.
And in relying upon that, they are complying with the law.
Easy.
But doesn't cover supermarkets' reluctance to answer questions about >>>>>>> how
food is killed.
What reluctance would that be?
Are you sure they have the information at that level of granularity? >>>>>
"Kosher"
they must have the knowledge for their own protection.
That's a classic logical fallacy known as "affirming the consequent".
The consumer product having a halal label on implies (more or less)
that animals involved were slaughtered in a halal manner. This does
not mean that the animals being slaughtered in a halal manner implies
that the consumer product has a halal label.
It's more detailed than that which is where the problems arise for
consumers. The meat has codes which enables the kill date and abattoir to >>> be identified which the supermarket can use but are meaningless to
consumers.
Knowing the date and the abattoir doesn't necessarily tell you whether the >> animal was stunned before killing. Are you claiming there is already a code >> for that?
That is one of the many questions the group has. As I said there is a lot
of information available but interpreting/understanding it is an issue. A label saying full-stun, non-stun or partial-stun would be useful.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:msketeFdgs2U5@mid.individual.net...
On 11/01/2026 11:42 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message> No you didn't.
news:msht7aFe28U1@mid.individual.net...
On 11/01/2026 03:13 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-11, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 11/01/2026 13:27, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 17:51, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 17:06, Jon Ribbens wrote:If you think that UK supermarkets don't conduct any supplier audits >>>>>>>>> then you're simply wrong. But either way, it's still the answer to >>>>>>>>> JNugent's rather odd question.
On 2026-01-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/01/2026 in message <msepbhFevmiU3@mid.individual.net> JNugent
wrote:
How would a supermarket be able to micro-manage what goes on in >>>>>>>>>>>>> third-party slaughterhouses?
You are wandering a long way off my original question relating >>>>>>>>>>>> to the law in respect of slaughter.
It's also fairly mind-boggling that he has neither heard, nor >>>>>>>>>>> apparently can conceive, of supply chain checks.
I assume this was said in amusement? There are no supply chain checks
until such point that DEFRA out that beef isn't really beef. >>>>>>>>>
You snipped the most relevant part of my post you were replying to: >>>>>>>>
An audit is where "Each point in the supply relies upon the previous >>>>>>>> supplier ticking a box and being honest"
No it isn't.
Do feel free to provide the evidence that supply chain checks are more >>>>>> than ticking boxes on a supplier's say so.
No thanks. Even if your highly-implausible, evidence-free claim that no >>>>> supplier audits ever involve anything other than looking at paperwork >>>>> was true - which it isn't - it wouldn't make any difference to the fact >>>>> that supermarkets *could* do more involved checks, and that is the
obvious answer to JNugent's peculiar question.
There's your error.
I never asked whether supermarkets *could* do their own checks.
I asked whether they *do* their own checks.
You asked -
" How would a supermarket be able to micro-manage what goes on in
third-party slaughterhouses?"
That was a long way down-thread from the initial question as to *whether*
supermarkets do their own at-site checks, and came after a certain amount of >> reluctance to answer that question.
Which is a hypothetical question; not a factual one
What you were asking is how they would do it, *if* they decided to do so.
Whether down-thread, mid-thread, or up thread, it is my sad duty to
inform you nevertheless that it directly contradicts the unequivocal claim you just made in your previous post that
" I never asked whether supermarkets *could* do their own checks."
The question was designed to check whether the PP even believed that
supermarkets were under some sort of obligation to have on-site observers at >> slaughterhouses and were breaking "the law" if they didn't.
Quite possibly. But what possible reason can you have for subsequently denying ever having asked such a question; as you just did ?
Surely people have the right to know ?If they're prepared to accept the cost of finding out?
On 2026-01-10, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 17:57, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 09/01/2026 23:44, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-09, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
These sorts of numbers cause me concern:Would you like to say why they cause you concern?
https://ahdb.org.uk/news/halal-meat-accounts-for-30-of-uk-lamb-sales >>>>>
They are noticably different to the 80% halal for sheep from DEFRA: >>>>
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67c5cf0e750837d7604dbdbf/25-02-14_Slaughter_Sector_Survey_2024__REVISED_.pdf
No such figure appears in that document.
"82% of total sheep were slaughtered by religious slaughter, mainly by
halal methods" page 21
It also says 71% of sheep were stunned before slaughter.
(Bottom of page 12.)
On 11/01/2026 in message <slrn10m7aoh.22r.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/01/2026 in message <xn0pkkomoig5hc502l@news.individual.net> Jeff
Gaines wrote:
I have been following a Facebook group on the slaughter of animals for >>>> food.
To try and get his back on track I have read through The Welfare of
Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 and the words "the meat
must be intended for consumption by Jewish or Muslim people" do not appear >>> in the Act as far as I can see.
On that basis how enforceable are the guidelines I quoted, if guidelines >>> can be enforced at all?
I don't think anybody feels they have found anything, we are all seeking guidance and clarification at the moment and struggling because
supermarkets are reluctant to answer questions about how food is killed.
Our objective is only to purchase meat that is slaughtered by the full-stun method which is non-recoverable, most of us on the grounds of humane
slaughter but some people have said they object to having prayers from religions other than the one they follow uttered over their meat. At the moment there is a feeling that the law ignores our needs.
On 1/13/26 10:57, Jon Ribbens wrote:
If a religion called religion1 existed that allowed men to marry 9 year >>>old girls and some of its members lived in the UK would it be >>>antireligion1ic to tell them the can't marry little girls here?
Is that your way of avoiding saying you now realise you made a mistake?
He is making the obvious point that religions have to behave within the >constraints of secular law. Minor concessions like not wearing a
motorcycle helmet are tolerated, but religions have to conform to major >societal norms and morals. We do not allow female genital mutilation. It
is not legal for Rastafarians to smoke weed.
Major religions adapt. Christianity has adapted, we have a female
archbishop of Canterbury. Judaism is one of the most adapted religions,
3000 years of moderating the raw Old Testament values. Islam is a bit
newer, but it can adapt.
Our toleration of religion is bounded, only within reason, and that
boundary moves with the times. If religious people want to jump up and
down and wail, we let them, but that doesn't stop us imposing our morals >upon them.
On 2026-01-13, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 13/01/2026 in message
<slrn10mc987.1cvi.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-13, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 12/01/2026 in message >>>><slrn10marju.1cvi.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-12, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 12/01/2026 in message >>>>>><slrn10maln4.1cvi.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote: >>>>>>>On 2026-01-12, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
The labels on the meat give the information but it's difficult for a >>>>>>>>consumer to interpret, I suspect the supermarkets are just as >>>>>>>>confused
as
consumers.
Thoughts at the moment are to seek clear labelling that consumers >>>>>>>>can
understand with a long term view to banning non-stun slaughter, >>>>>>>>after
all
our current government are strong on animal welfare isn't it?
I don't think there's any chance of antisemitism, however there is >>>>>>>>very
strong antiislamism since the talk is 99% about Halal food!
You don't "think there's any chance of antisemitism" if your "long >>>>>>>term
view" is to end up legally requiring Jews to either to become >>>>>>>vegetarian
or to stop observing their religion?
I didn't say that. I said "with a long term view to banning non-stun >>>>>>slaughter".
You somehow don't realise that the one implies the other?
If a religion called religion1 existed that allowed men to marry 9 year >>>>old girls and some of its members lived in the UK would it be >>>>antireligion1ic to tell them the can't marry little girls here?
Is that your way of avoiding saying you now realise you made a mistake?
No. I am seeking a comparison, can you answer my question?
Maybe after you answer the one I asked you first.
That is one of the many questions the group has. As I said there is a lot >>of information available but interpreting/understanding it is an issue. A >>label saying full-stun, non-stun or partial-stun would be useful.
I am intrigued to know what "partial stun" might mean. It sounds like a >massive loophole to me.
On 13/01/2026 in message <10k5376$3161p$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>news:xn0pkox0t42k6px00c@news.individual.net...
But doesn't cover supermarkets' reluctance to answer questions about how food
is killed.
Indeed.
After being stunned, and hopefully killed, the cattle and pigs are then >>hoist upside down on a moving belt* ; to be then spit open so as to allow >>the blood to drain which is collected for subsequent use in black puddings. >>Then their entrails and internal organs will be torn out; to be subsequently >>minced up for use sausages, burgers, pork pies, etc. At the end of the line >>their heads tails and hooves will be removed. Hint: cheaper lines of >>sausages, pork pies and burgers
It really makes you wonder why they don't have posters up in the >>supermarkets along with colour photographs explaining all this, doesn't it ? >>Sales would probably go through the roof
bb
* The inspiration for the moving assembly lines adopted by Henry Ford. >>Chicago being the meat processing capital of the world.
I believe he said "if you ask customers what they want they will say faster horses"?
In this case what I want as a consumer is what I said in my OP:
"I am a meat eater so I have to accept that animals have to be reared and slaughtered to provide my meat."
"I believe they have a right to proper care/welfare
On 13/01/2026 09:00 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msketeFdgs2U5@mid.individual.net...
On 11/01/2026 11:42 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:msht7aFe28U1@mid.individual.net...
On 11/01/2026 03:13 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-11, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 11/01/2026 13:27, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 17:51, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-01-10, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 10/01/2026 17:06, Jon Ribbens wrote:If you think that UK supermarkets don't conduct any supplier audits >>>>>>>>>> then you're simply wrong. But either way, it's still the answer to >>>>>>>>>> JNugent's rather odd question.
On 2026-01-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/01/2026 in message <msepbhFevmiU3@mid.individual.net> >>>>>>>>>>>>> JNugent
wrote:
How would a supermarket be able to micro-manage what goes on in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> third-party slaughterhouses?
You are wandering a long way off my original question relating >>>>>>>>>>>>> to the law in respect of slaughter.
It's also fairly mind-boggling that he has neither heard, nor >>>>>>>>>>>> apparently can conceive, of supply chain checks.
I assume this was said in amusement? There are no supply chain >>>>>>>>>>> checks
until such point that DEFRA out that beef isn't really beef. >>>>>>>>>>
You snipped the most relevant part of my post you were replying to: >>>>>>>>>
An audit is where "Each point in the supply relies upon the previous >>>>>>>>> supplier ticking a box and being honest"
No it isn't.
Do feel free to provide the evidence that supply chain checks are more >>>>>>> than ticking boxes on a supplier's say so.
No thanks. Even if your highly-implausible, evidence-free claim that no >>>>>> supplier audits ever involve anything other than looking at paperwork >>>>>> was true - which it isn't - it wouldn't make any difference to the fact >>>>>> that supermarkets *could* do more involved checks, and that is the >>>>>> obvious answer to JNugent's peculiar question.
There's your error.
I never asked whether supermarkets *could* do their own checks.
> No you didn't.
You asked -
" How would a supermarket be able to micro-manage what goes on in
third-party slaughterhouses?"
That was a long way down-thread from the initial question as to *whether* >>> supermarkets do their own at-site checks, and came after a certain amount of
reluctance to answer that question.
Which is a hypothetical question; not a factual one
What you were asking is how they would do it, *if* they decided to do so. >>
Whether down-thread, mid-thread, or up thread, it is my sad duty to
inform you nevertheless that it directly contradicts the unequivocal claim >> you just made in your previous post that
" I never asked whether supermarkets *could* do their own checks."
And I didn't.
The question was designed to check whether the PP even believed that
supermarkets were under some sort of obligation to have on-site observers at
slaughterhouses and were breaking "the law" if they didn't.
Quite possibly. But what possible reason can you have for subsequently
denying ever having asked such a question; as you just did ?
You are misrepresenting and misinterpreting the question I asked.
What a surprise.
Surely people have the right to know ?
If they're prepared to accept the cost of finding out?
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 12:47:23 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
2 files (2,024K bytes) |
| Messages: | 183,176 |
| Posted today: | 1 |
