There has been no scientific evidence to show that killing badgers is an effective way to reduce TB in cattle. Culling badgers is a cruel, expensive and ineffective policy which should be stopped.

There has been no scientific evidence to show that killing badgers is an effective way to reduce TB in cattle. Culling badgers is a, cruel, expensive and ineffective policy which needs to be stopped. There are studies that are working with vaccines to inoculate Badgers against TB and which should be given time. When we are hoping that developing countries will prioritise biodiversity over economic growth it is hypocritical to be killing our own wildlife.

There has been no scientific evidence to show that killing badgers is an effective way to reduce TB in cattle. Culling badgers is a, cruel, expensive and ineffective policy which needs to be stopped.

There has been no scientific evidence to show that killing badgers is an effective way to reduce TB in cattle. Culling badgers is a cruel, expensive and ineffective policy which needs to be stopped.

There has been no scientific evidence to show that killing badgers is an effective way to reduce TB in cattle. Culling badgers is a, cruel, expensive and ineffective policy which needs to be stopped.

Mark Spencer MP recently received a free game bird shooting weekend courtesy of lobbying group British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC). We are, in turn, asking our MP to stop accepting gifts from shooting lobbyists and from now on support a ban on the damaging practice of driven grouse shooting. There are many very good reasons for banning driven grouse shooting: -Government subsidies support this practice (at a time when everywhere else is feeling the brunt of cuts: why aren't millionaire landowners?); -the illegal killing of grouse predators (especially the hen harrier, which is now almost extinct in England due to persecution on grouse moors); -grouse moors are extensively 'managed' in such a way that causes far higher flood risks downriver; -increased water pollution (which inflates our water bills- there is evidence that bills would be cheaper if the rich man's driven grouse shooting was banned); -increased greenhouse gas emissions due to the practice of burning the moors to keep a habitat that boosts grouse numbers; -millions of birds are killed each year.

In 2000 the UK banned all fur farming, to prevent animal cruelty. However the law does not prevent the import of real fur. There is no legal provision to make suppliers declare whether their products are made with real or fake fur. Real fur from abroad is now common in high street clothing shops. To send a message to our overseas business partners that the UK does not tolerate the cruel methods of fur farming; we need a law that bans the import of all real farmed fur, and which puts the onus on importers to prove that any fur they use is fake, vintage or taken from free-range animals that died of old age.

This is incredibly important, the level of animal cruelty has become unbearable, these animals have no voice and nobody to represent them politically in the world of law making. In 2016 how can we say that we live in a civilized society with the amount of animal abuse, when vegans and veggies are openly laughed at as being loonies just because they respect the animal kingdom and an animals right to life, the animals desperately need a voice and we want that voice to be the labour party.

Vivisection is ineffective and archaic. Animals do not share our DNA, there is nothing that we can learn from animals that is relevant to the human body. As such we ask that Newcastle University moves on to modern forms of research such as computer modelling, micro- dosing and organ on a chip which are vastly more accurate than the outdated cruelty that they currently use. It is time to stop placing profit over results. This cruelty must end, for the sake of the animals. Sentient beings have the right to live a life free from suffering and torture. These tests are not conducted for results, they are conducted for profit. Modern testing is far more reliable and applicable to the human body. We the undersigned wish for advancement in treatments and medication which does not happen when using animals.

Recent high profile scientific evidence shows that eating a plant-based diet will help prevent worsening climate change. Animal agriculture overuses the world’s precious resources and is a significant contributor to greenhouse gases; 40-50% of farmed grain is fed to animals for the meat and dairy industry. As advocates of an end to unnecessary cruelty to animals, vegans are leading the trend towards a compassionate, ethical and healthy diet and we ask that the BBC stop excluding us from food programming. A fresh new cooking show will inform and help address the problems of stereotyping and cultural reference that prevent so many people from changing to a plant based diet. Veganism is a legally protected belief under Article 9 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. Yet, it is underrepresented and often misunderstood; generally vegans eat a much wider variety of food than meat eaters. Where is the modern celebrity chef who could introduce innovative culinary television programming that represents vegans and a better nutritional future for everyone? Look to the popularity of people like Lee Watson, author of Peace and Parsnips and five-year vegan, and Áine Carlin, Peasoup blogger and author of The New Vegan. It is time for a distinct and vibrant ethical cooking show to take centre stage, push meat to the side and bring modern and compassionate attitudes in to the heart of the BBC. References 1. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/features/no-meat-no-dairy-no-problem-is-2014-the-year-vegans-become-mainstream-9032064.html [Accessed 26 December 2015] 2. https://www.vegsoc.org/sslpage.aspx?pid=753 3.8 million mainly vegetarians in UK and, “according to the European Vegetarian Union, Britain has the third highest rate of vegetarianism in the European Union” http://www.libertygb.org.uk/v1/index.php/home/root/news-libertygb/6123-uk-vegetarians [Accessed 26 December 2015] 3. BBC RADIO 4 - Henry Dimbleby in conversation with Professor Tim Lang (Professor of Food Policy, City University London) http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06s9d26#play [Accessed 26 December 2015] 4. https://www.vegansociety.com/about-us/key-facts Other useful information http://www.veganuary.com http://london.vegfest.co.uk/pr-russell-brand 5.Peasoup Blog http://www.peasoupeats.com 6.Deliciously Ella - http://www.deliciouslyella.com https://twitter.com/DeliciouslyElla One World, Many Lives https://www.vegansociety.com

EU Politicians have introduced a new law obliging the United Kingdom, Ireland and Italy to organise the killing of hundreds of thousands of grey squirrels, every year from 2016, using methods that include poisoning, bludgeoning to death or trapping and shooting. In the UK the Forestry Commission has drawn up new plans obliging UK landowners to carry out this cull if they wish to receive improvement grants; they would be paid £100 per hectare per year for five years using taxpayers’ money. In March 2014, Oliver Heald, the Solicitor General, told MPs that eradicating the grey squirrel was "no longer considered feasible". Representatives of animal welfare organisations, like Mimi Bekhechi (director of PETA UK) and Andrew Tyler (director of Animal Aid), have stated many times that killing grey squirrels is an inhumane, ecologically and socially damaging practice, and is an absolutely pointless cruelty waged against beautiful animals. Andrew Tyler said, “The grey squirrel is hated by members of certain groups, most notably those with shooting or forestry interests and some 'conservationists' who believe that the mass killing of greys is justifiable in their quest to boost the numbers of red squirrels”. "People have been responsible for wiping out the red squirrel, it's an excuse to blame the grey squirrel. The damage they do is exaggerated. Attempts to purge the landscape of them in the past have failed and this will fail too." Rob Atkinson, the head of wildlife science at the RSPCA, said: "It's ethically dubious killing one species for the sake of another. Up until the 1970s you could get a licence to kill red squirrels, so they were the baddies then, now it's grey squirrels. Apart from all that it doesn't work. There's absolutely no point in doing it." Killing squirrels is to be conducted even in the time of year when females nurse their dependent kittens. Killing thousands of nursing females will cause tens of thousands of baby squirrels to die of starvation. Starving animals is a torture in breach of animal welfare standards set by the World Organisation for Animal Health. Scientific research has dispelled many myths about grey squirrels, yet these are still used to ‘justify’ the killing of grey squirrels. The red squirrel population in the UK has been declining for centuries now for a variety of reasons. Their habitat is coniferous woodland, their main diet, seeds from pine cones; these forests now exist mainly in Scotland, England has more deciduous woodland, which is best suited to grey squirrels, This can clearly be seen in the Forestry Commission's 1998 research data on grey and red squirrel numbers across the UK. A huge factor in the decline of red squirrels is the destruction of millions of acres of woodland by humans for agriculture, housing and industrial purposes. As a species, reds are far less adaptable than the grey, and have suffered badly when their habitat has been destroyed by us. Red squirrels will not thrive unless we give them the correct habitat, which will, in turn, limit the greys. These innocent creatures (the grey squirrel) were brought from their native country for the entertainment of wealthy landowners in the 1870s. They have not killed the red squirrels. Up to the late 1970s I remember that red squirrels were being slaughtered by landowners who blamed them for bark stripping and the loss of songbird eggs amongst other things, now it is fashionable to protect them, so blame has been transferred to the grey squirrel. The two species do not share the same habitat or food in most cases, there is no decent or logical justification for this cull. As with badgers there is no logic in the squirrel cull, which will cause untold suffering to a much loved animal and the main beneficiaries are people in the commercial business of killing wild animals.

We call upon all Staffordshire landowners to support the vaccination of badgers to address concerns about Tuberculosis (TB), culling is not the answer. There have been ongoing governmental trials to kill badgers in Somerset, Gloucestershire and Dorset and was extended to six other Counties in 2016, a further 11 cull zones in 2017 and further expansion this year and expected to include Staffordshire. Killing badgers as a method to prevent bovine tuberculosis (TB) as well as being inhumane and barbaric is scientifically proven to be ineffective. The government’s own figures, which were quietly released on the last day before Christmas, show TB in cattle to be rising in and around cull zones. In 2017 19,274 badgers were killed with 20 – 40,000 more expected by the end of 2018. The Welsh Government's approach has been far more successful by focusing on improved testing and movement controls in cattle. New incidents of bovine TB in cattle are now down by 28% in Wales with a 45% cut in the number of cattle being slaughtered. This now leaves 94% of the welsh herd TB free, without killing any badgers. Please say no to the badger cull and show the UK Government that we will not let badgers be murdered. Vaccination and cattle control must be implemented.