From webstump at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Mon Jan 12 09:23:02 2026 Return-path: To: billy at ..on.com Subject: Re: Re: Slaughter Of Animals For Food References: <10ju1d2$3ae3m$1@dont-email.me> <10juk0a$3ggl2$1@dont-email.me> <10k0d3o$3vc0d$1@dont-email.me> <10k1cap$9l33$1@dont-email.me> In-Reply-To: <10k1cap$9l33$1@dont-email.me> Reply-To: matthewv+ulmtestmod at ..riolis.greenend.org.uk Errors-To: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk X-Webstump-Event: [17681950608875] reject duplicate Message-Id: From: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2026 09:23:02 +0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been rejected by a moderator. Your message has been rejected because it appears to the moderator to be a duplicate of another post already accepted by the group. The group charter and moderation policy can be found at https://uklegal.weebly.com/ Disputed moderation decisions can be discussed in the newsgroup uk.net.news.moderation ============================================ Full text of your message follows > From webstump@chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Jan 12 05:17:40 2026 > Return-path: > Envelope-to: webstump+?@slimy.greenend.org.uk > Authentication-Results: mailhub-hex-d.mythic-beasts.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=eternal-september.org > Authentication-Results: name/5D30C5FA48; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=anon.com > To: uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > From: "billy bookcase" > Newsgroups: uk.legal.moderated > Subject: Re: Slaughter Of Animals For Food > Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2026 23:39:01 -0000 > Organization: A noiseless patient Spider > Message-ID: <10k1cap$9l33$1@dont-email.me> > References: <10ju1d2$3ae3m$1@dont-email.me> <10juk0a$3ggl2$1@dont-email.me> <10k0d3o$3vc0d$1@dont-email.me> > Injection-Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2026 23:39:06 +0000 (UTC) > Cancel-Lock: sha1:CbYaaNF5SPGi+X1U7ZcQEXtO4vg= > X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX19TNd8Oo+k+lZvtYJpVMhujk8wCs/Ixyo3lC+bpLcB7pg== > X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 > X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original > X-Priority: 3 > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on smtp > X-Mythic-Source-External: YES > X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 15 > X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.5 > Delivered-To: usenet-uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > X-BlackCat-To: usenet-uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > X-Mythic-Originator: uid-1081-on-lynx.mythic-beasts.com > X-STUMP-Warning-0: Unfolded headers Received: Received: Received: Received: Authentication-Results: Received: Received: Received: > > > "JNugent" wrote in message > news:msht7aFe28U1@mid.individual.net... > > On 11/01/2026 03:13 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote: > >> On 2026-01-11, Fredxx wrote: > >>> On 11/01/2026 13:27, Jon Ribbens wrote: > >>>> On 2026-01-10, Fredxx wrote: > >>>>> On 10/01/2026 17:51, Jon Ribbens wrote: > >>>>>> On 2026-01-10, Fredxx wrote: > >>>>>>> On 10/01/2026 17:06, Jon Ribbens wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 2026-01-10, Jeff Gaines wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On 10/01/2026 in message 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 diidn't. > > 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 > > > bb > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEfWu6wfyjzX88oocanSrwpvmn4x4FAmlkvXYACgkQnSrwpvmn 4x7UVQgAspKAdUjSOS6E185y43Wht9V2h659kBrkeFjkWl4xlcAr5/pZzIO6xgxl sqHJgb2xNF2GjoJ4MTvzpxhpr3dur7+mfy5eg+MrmlkdEKVm2nGYl25IeWsFZGMO +AyofnRecCCccHVLw7428KLRzdfZUmEYFciA2r9g708e1azHF3ldNGFikTpbd+2N XnoPkJglgYls95CgWK+BMrfIp+EZTf36mSWV4SVCX3fzrOeszVT2mAaua0stzPze AiaZ6U+Dr2yYBYMnoQOmaER05tI10HhaKKiY4cUW4TD5IBhVi0/YcIIQ5088CLib GNxRa3SuX0uy3rQqAyuHOjIEtVJ7JA== =H+6h -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----