From webstump at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Wed Jan 14 13:41:45 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> <10k1cpf$9phl$1@dont-email.me> <10k51jp$30nli$1@dont-email.me> <10k5iib$35qtf$1@dont-email.me> <10k837s$3vjk9$1@dont-email.me> In-Reply-To: <10k837s$3vjk9$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: [17683948228879] reject duplicate Message-Id: From: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2026 13:41:45 +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 Wed Jan 14 12:47:02 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/6370B5FA45; 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: Wed, 14 Jan 2026 12:46:45 -0000 > Organization: A noiseless patient Spider > Message-ID: <10k837s$3vjk9$1@dont-email.me> > References: <10ju1d2$3ae3m$1@dont-email.me> <10juk0a$3ggl2$1@dont-email.me> <10k0d3o$3vc0d$1@dont-email.me> <10k1cpf$9phl$1@dont-email.me> <10k51jp$30nli$1@dont-email.me> <10k5iib$35qtf$1@dont-email.me> > Injection-Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2026 12:46:53 +0000 (UTC) > Cancel-Lock: sha1:u15kbVDPrne55QH53ipF4DgiqGI= > X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX1/tOUhybYlkkMVZRQd3WlSHQ1KwKZrZzZeDiX9hRg5Wlg== > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 > X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 > X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > X-Priority: 3 > 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:msn8rrFs1fuU1@mid.individual.net... > > On 13/01/2026 01:49 pm, billy bookcase wrote: > >> "JNugent" wrote in message > >> news:msmsa1FpuskU1@mid.individual.net... > >>> On 13/01/2026 09:00 am, billy bookcase wrote: > >>>> "JNugent" wrote in message > >>>> news:msketeFdgs2U5@mid.individual.net... > >>>>> On 11/01/2026 11:42 pm, billy bookcase wrote: > >>>>>> "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. > >>>>>>> > >> > >> (A) >>>>> I asked whether they *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. > >>> > >> (B) > I asked *how* it could be done. > >> > >> Make your mind up . > >> > >> Just now you claimed (A) " I asked whether they *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 ? > >>> > >>> You are misrepresenting and misinterpreting the question I asked. > >> > >> So which was it ? > >> > >> (A) " I asked whether they *do* their own checks" > > > > That was a previous (and quite separate) question at an earlier stage of the > > thread. Things had moved on by the time of the other question. > > > > Come on... it isn't rocket surgery. > >> > >> or > >> > >> (B) "I asked *how* it could be done." > >> > > Reinstated line (deleted for some reason by BB): > > > > [>> You are misrepresenting and misinterpreting the question I asked.] > > Might I humbly suggest that > > You press the "up" arrow key on your computer 21 times (from this point) > > And read what it says ? > > Will you now explin why you erroneously claimed above, that I'd deleted that > line "for some reason" ? > > > > bb > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEfWu6wfyjzX88oocanSrwpvmn4x4FAmlnnRkACgkQnSrwpvmn 4x6bDgf/e45W4mRjv+OJHydH7XFJjfcSKZmvUuLGRnt3OsqAW7fSkb1Qg/i2wL9u PkMYdmELcf/0WMD80JzhN+MRpbooFHILTPGI9IzPaDs14BQwaCXk4EhwKbVvIVT9 LuQZkzSU7fdRC4CjKHKaD5Spe9mB1Ii+/1MihSZeOkh6RsBbfAzIASokPb4W414q IZxq4Q0R1fF0dV201k+Gg4CSDQixi+7q/pZ3xSnI95JDiiKNlUzHV2wF7yzll7or NXOu+8GYJzeWiBZtA/UOdt7A+aYo2fXI0YSh05XAZTRN+XNIPhUAcZXVUmWhZ1// 2uHxhmHc/lZZzNb3N0T7DT7xpTs8Zg== =K7Qi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----