King sought Pork Board payout
The HoS reports:
Mike King’s manager sought thousands of dollars from the Pork Board after the comedian was dropped from its television campaign – and after King had been alerted to pig-farming concerns.
Documents show King’s manager was corresponding with the Pork Board as late as March, just two months before the screening of last weekend’s Sunday documentary, in which King turned on his former employer and exposed what he called “callous” and “evil” pig-farming conditions.
People are going to be very suspcious of the timings and motivations.
Pork Board executives say the figure of around $50,000 was raised in a telephone conversation between Steele and its marketing manager Hadleigh Smith.
The request went to the board in February, and was rejected.
King said his manager’s request for recompense was “news to me” and asked who had told the Herald on Sunday about it.
That’s a very dedicated manager who seeks money on your behalf without telling you.
May 24th, 2009 at 11:20 am
Pork pies anyone?
May 24th, 2009 at 11:27 am
yeah, For an extra $50k Im not that offended. Think of it as a SAFE payment
May 24th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Someone is telling porkies.
I’m afraid that there are these gum diggers around hunting for money and angry at the pork board.
Things are never quite like they look.
Mr King does not impress me !
May 24th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Ha, never has. No doubt needed the money to keep up with his mates. Pig hunting with Mark anyone?
May 24th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
To be honest I’m pretty annoyed at how the media and public have made this into a ‘Mike King’ issue rather than about the actual issue of pig farming in NZ – which SAFE have been campaigning on for years (and it’s been the main campaign for the past two years – Carter is also a hypocrite for saying he doesn’t know about what the industry is like since Christchurch SAFE have been protesting outside his office for months since last year). King isn’t even a vegetarian.
May 24th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Rebel Heart said: “King isn’t even a vegetarian.”
Oh well – at least he has ONE thing going for him then.
May 24th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Here we go, After writing last week’s Rankin and Toffee Pop stories I was wondering which celebrity Carolyne Meng-Yee would go after this time. It’s Mike King with a he said- she said story. Meng-Yee claims the Pork Board discussed pig-farming issues with King. King denies this. Former board chairman says he believed he had discussed it with King. Meng-yee was hoping like hell he would say he had proof that he had, because then she could have gone in for the kill. No criticism of the pork board, of course…
May 24th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Rebel
The non issue of pig farming wouldn’t have even made it to the news if King’sname wasn’t attached to the story.
You could pick on any industry or business and always find something to complain about or a dodgy operator. It’s called Human nature.
SAFE are and always will be a minority group pushing a minority barrow. Good luck to them but don’t expect everyone to care what they think.
May 24th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Bacon hell! Looks like King is just being a dirty swine and want’s to get payback.
May 24th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
“I’m pretty annoyed at how the media and public have made this into a ‘Mike King’ issue rather than about the actual issue of pig farming in NZ”
gee, my heart bleeds for you. You use a ‘celebrity’ to undermine an industry, then complain because that celebrity has some skeletons??
Perhaps you should choose more wisely next time – (like the ‘celebrity’ should have done)
May 24th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
RH *SAFE have been campaigning on for years- the media and public have made this into a ‘Mike King’ issue *
SAFE should be greatful without a celebrity.. their years of campaigning feel on death ears…. Dah.
Even the GREENS are doing it … calling in celebrities for the same reason.
Hmm.. so Lee still has a chance in the Mt Albert by-election .. now the media have made her one to.
May 24th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
They should have just given him the 50,000, now it gonna cost the Pork Board millions now that the general public is disgusted with their cruel intensive farming techniques.
May 24th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
That’s right Heman
Give in to some 2 bit opportunist.
Thankfully, I think you will find that there are many like me who will start eating more pork and never watching King again.
And never walking into the TV shop he promotes either.
May 24th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
I stopped thinking Mike King was funny about 7 years ago.
May 24th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Mike King points to cruel practices in pig farming. We discuss Mike King.
Oink, oink, oink!
May 24th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
“Disgruntled” former Pork Board spokesperson knew nothing about hush-money offer…..yeah right.
May 24th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Certainly, King’s motives are fair game. (In 2006, TV3 raised the issue of pigs being mistreated by the same farmer. Where was King then?) But that doesn’t change the fact that the pigs in the Sunday programme are being treated cruelly. Ignoring that won’t make the problem disappear. That the farmer was apparently acting within the law doesn’t change that fact either. It’s worth remembering that many farmers do not treat their pigs in this way. In other words, there are many farmers that have a conscience.
May 24th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
I agree Ross most, if not all, farmers have a conscience and treat their animals well. Stressed unhappy animals produce poor quality, crappy meat.
Beyond Mike King, this morning’s Media Watch on National Radio raised the very good point about TVNZ’s ethics in all of this and how they allowed SAFE to run their news for them.
The film was shot weeks ago giving plenty of time for editing, the programme appeared just as the bacon competition was being run, adverts for WSPA ran all week, and TVNZ didn’t know where the farm was because SAFE didn’t tell them? Who’s running the public broadcaster?
May 24th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
“People are going to be very suspcious of the timings and motivations.”
And so the character assassination of Mike King begins.
Of course, no one could actually be outraged at the treatment of pigs in this country, so he must be motivated by feelings of revenge, right? What bullshit.
May 24th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
You use a ‘celebrity’ to undermine an industry, then complain because that celebrity has some skeletons?
I don’t speak on behalf of SAFE – I’m simply saying that I’m annoyed that, as one commentator mentioned above, that it’s only received this much publicity ‘cos Mike King fronted the documentary. I’d like to think that people are concerned about the pork industry because of the footage they saw, not because they saw Mike King. I didn’t ‘choose’ to use Mike King – I didn’t even know the Sunday programme was going to be on pig farming until it showed.
May 24th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
This is just stupid.
IT DOESNT MATTER what Kings motives are.
Either you oppose pigs being kept in little cages and so you think King has done the right thing
If that is the case it is stupid to beat him up for agreeing with you.
OR
you think that sort of farming is fine and you would want to beat up on anyone who threatened to make your pork more expensive.
Speaking of hidden motives, most people who are getting stuck into king seem to be in the second camp while pretending to be in the first one.
May 24th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
smear campaign against King trying to detract attention away from the point – cage farming.
May 24th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Why does it matter what Mike King’s motivation behind all this was? The important thing is that the truth was revealed and thrown in the faces of most New Zealanders. Would people honestly rather go on living in ignorance and not knowing where their food is really coming from? Or to go on being able to buy cheap meat regardless of how much suffering the animal it used to be went through just so they could enjoy the taste of it?
People keep talking about SAFE as if they’re some crazy extremist organisation hell bent on… well what exactly? What is their motive for all of this? Could it be preventing the suffering of innocent animals perhaps? And why is that such a bad thing?
May 24th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
smear campaign against King trying to detract attention away from the more important smear campaign
May 24th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
New Flash
Mike King Announces: I did not know pork was made from pigs
May 24th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
“I’d like to think that people are concerned about the pork industry because of the footage they saw, not because they saw Mike King.”
And I would like to think that people would reasonably assume that the footage they saw was an isolated case. Or maybe that they would know that pigs woken up in the middle of the night might be expecting food and therefore scream. Or maybe that …
“Could it be preventing the suffering of innocent animals perhaps?”
Yep, which is why they released inflamatory, deceptive footage. And then when they were given the opportunity to name and shame the farmer involved they declined.
May 24th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
“The important thing is that the truth was revealed and thrown in the faces of most New Zealanders”
If that was Truth being revealed, I obviously have a different definition of the meaning of the word.
The farm was apparently operating within the law.
Mike King had a financial interest.
SAFE used illegal means to create a beat up story. I always thought breaking and entering was against the law.
The only thing thrown in our faces was bullshit.
May 24th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
> And then when they were given the opportunity to name and shame the farmer involved they declined.
Oh please, what garbage. This issue was raised 3 years ago and nothing happened. MAF have got plenty of resources to take prosecutions and it’s clear that they’re OK with animal cruelty.
> The farm was apparently operating within the law.
Go and read Peter Sankoff’s blog – he explains that the law allows for animal cruelty. Bear in mind that there’s only 10 animal welfare inspectors for 100 million animals, so mistreatment of animals is clearly not a high priority for MAF.
Slavery used to be legal too. It seems there are some on here who are disappointed it was outlawed.
May 24th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Common misconceptions.
Kimble: I would like to think that people would reasonably assume that the footage they saw was an isolated case. Or maybe that they would know that pigs woken up in the middle of the night might be expecting food and therefore scream.
Piggery owner Colin Kay, who is at the centre of the pig cruelty debate, says pigs at his Levin piggery may have been provoked by animal activists.
SAFE has been assured that these sows could be heard vocalising about 100m away from the property. NZ Open Rescue say they saw highly agitated or depressed sows, pigs with little or no water or food. The pigs were displaying stereotypic behavior such as bar biting, and some pigs could barely stand. They also found a sow dead in her crate. The activists were very concerned about these animals and assumed that farm workers had not bothered to turn up to work the previous day.
Colin Kay says the footage broadcast on Sunday was not all recorded at his farm.
This is correct. The footage of the farrowing crates was filmed in Auckland, and Piggy Sue was obtained from a piggery in Carterton before being relocated to a sanctuary. Sunday stated that the farrowing crate footage was not taken at Colin’s farm. The footage aired of sows in crates was however all filmed at Kay’s piggery at Levin.
Colin Kay says “I think there were at least two other piggeries. I’ve been taking the hit on the whole show.”
SAFE did not initially reveal Colin Kay as the owner because we did not want the media to simply focus on an individual farmer. All intensive pig farms severely confine pigs in barren conditions which prevent the sows from being able to express their normal patterns of behaviour.
The chairman of the New Zealand Pork Industry Board, Chris Trengrove, says: “I have not been on a farm that looks anything like that.”
All intensive pig farms in New Zealand confine sows in sow stalls for prolonged periods of their life. SAFE acknowledges that there are some intensive piggeries that are more modern and cleaner than the one visited by Mike King and animal activists, while there are others that are dirtier. However the problems go beyond appearance. All farms using sow stalls use the same size stalls – 2 m x 60 cm – leading to the welfare problems witnessed by Mike King.
The industry says it is “phasing out long term use of sow stalls.”
This statement is totally misleading and untrue. The industry seeks to retain the use of sow stalls indefinitely. The ‘phase out’ they are referring to relates to the length of time a sow will spend inside a stall. The industry wants to be able to keep sows inside sow stalls (the same size as seen on TV) for four week periods at the start of their pregnancy.
The industry wants 10 years for this ‘phase-out,’ during which time thousands of sows will continue to suffer.
The pork industry is not telling the New Zealand public that the sow will also spend a further four to six weeks inside a farrowing crate – a crate almost the same size as the sow stall. The main difference is that she will have her new-born piglets with her, although she will be unable to properly nurse or comfort them.
Most sows have two pregnancies per year, meaning the sows will still spend a third of their lives in sow stalls or farrowing crates.
The industry says there are no alternatives to sow stalls. They argue sows fight in group housing and that stalls provide better welfare.
If this were true, then how can pig farmers in New Zealand rear more than half of New Zealand’s breeding sows without sow stalls?
The industry say pregnant sows become aggressive and must be kept in sow stalls for their own well being.
If a sow must be kept apart from others during her pregnancy it does not need to be inside a sow stall, which prevents her from even turning around. A single pen would offer the same solution, but at additional cost to the farmer.
The industry says intensive farming is the only way to remain competitive due to imported pork products.
Pork products sold in New Zealand are not labelled adequately. This is grossly misleading for the consumer. If you purchase pork products that do not clearly state they are certified free range it is likely you are unwittingly supporting pig cruelty in New Zealand and overseas. By boycotting intensively produced pork products consumers can force producers to change from cruel intensive methods, leading to lower prices and better pig welfare.
May 24th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
yeah big deal Rebel Heart but we’re talking about Mike Kings greedy little motives here
May 24th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
“Slavery used to be legal too”
Now I’ve seen it all.
You people who want to change the world through illegal and highy dubious means, are only ever going to reap what you sow.
Sure you will influence some idiots but believe me, the rest of us regard you as crackpots.
Maybe the pig industry does have to improve, but don’t try to convince me by the type of bullshit we were fed in that TV program.
May 24th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Yeah big deal Rebel Heart but we’re talking about Mike Kings greedy little motives here.
If anything Mike King is in it for the publicity – but he has nothing (financially) to gain by fronting up against the pork industry. I believe he is genuinely concerned about how factory pigs are farmed in NZ and that it has very little to do with ‘revenge’.
May 24th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Yeah right
May 24th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
I was the recipient of 2 tickets to a Mike king comedy tour about 5 years ago, our whole work was involed with the social club.
After 15 minutes of what could be described as low class filth, with the main target being women and their ability to perform sexual acts to Mr Kings high standards, my wife and I with 5 other couples got up and left for a drink and a chat at the bar down the street.
To hear Mr King complain of low or poor standards, of lack of morals within a profession has finally drawn a laugh, even if its 5 years late.
As for depression, life has taught me that those who live a lie more often than not have little or no life.
Harden up Mike.
May 24th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Cameron Bennet wants to know more of what you thought. Tonights version of course was an apologetic claptrap of the first airing.
Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!!!
Well consider this. The Pork industry has spent a not inconsiderable sum of money propping up the state broadcaster and Mike King via its advertising expenditure. In one moment of commercial suicide the state broadcaster has demolished all the work the Pork Board has done in the last few years to grow its share of the meat market.
This behavoir brings into question the ability of that broadcasters management. At a time when they have shed nearly 100 staff and are in serious meltdown themselves they have exacted retribution by attacking their paying customer. Now spare me the editorial independence garbage, this is a blatant attempt at commercial sabotage.
This morning John Key was running around wanting facts about the Veitch affair, which commercially made nil or little difference to TVNZ so we should now expect him to question TVNZ very harshly about sabotaging their paying customers.
Indeed I would be expecting that he now replaces the Board of that organization with people who are not consumed with hatred and influenced by fringe groups wanting their agenda publicized.
What about it Mr Key?
May 24th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Common misconceptions.
>SAFE has been assured that these sows could be heard vocalising about 100m away from the property.
Thats bullshit, unless they had been provoked, pigs sleep at night
>NZ Open Rescue say they saw highly agitated or depressed sows, pigs with little or no water or food.
The footage showed water in the troughs and I would be worried if pigs had any food left in the middle of the night.
>The pigs were displaying stereotypic behavior such as bar biting, and some pigs could barely stand. They also found a sow dead in her crate. The activists were very concerned about these animals and assumed that farm workers had not bothered to turn up to work the previous day.
Farm workers not turning up is a problem.
>The pork industry is not telling the New Zealand public that the sow will also spend a further four to six weeks inside a farrowing crate – a crate almost the same size as the sow stall. The main difference is that she will have her new-born piglets with her, although she will be unable to properly nurse or comfort them.
3 to four weeks, to protect the piglets from being crushed by thei 250kg to 300kg mother. If she could not nurse them they would not grow. Farrowing crates are also temperature controlled to keep sows cool and piglets warm.
>Most sows have two pregnancies per year, meaning the sows will still spend a third of their lives in sow stalls or farrowing crates.
It is a 20 week cycle so 2.6 is possible
>The industry says there are no alternatives to sow stalls. They argue sows fight in group housing and that stalls provide better welfare.
There are alternatives and sows do fight, requires experienced stackmanship
>If this were true, then how can pig farmers in New Zealand rear more than half of New Zealand’s breeding sows without sow stalls?
Outside on free draining soils of canterbury, almost impossible elsewhere in the country.
>If a sow must be kept apart from others during her pregnancy it does not need to be inside a sow stall, which prevents her from even turning around. A single pen would offer the same solution, but at additional cost to the farmer.
At additional cost to the consumer, sows would get lonely and depressed in individual pens.
>The industry says intensive farming is the only way to remain competitive due to imported pork products.
800,000 Kg per week from intensive and subsidised farms from canada and the us
>Pork products sold in New Zealand are not labelled adequately. This is grossly misleading for the consumer. If you purchase pork products that do not clearly state they are certified free range it is likely you are unwittingly supporting pig cruelty in New Zealand and overseas. By boycotting intensively produced pork products consumers can force producers to change from cruel intensive methods, leading to lower prices and better pig welfare.
It is the forcing down of prices that led to the use of sow stalls
May 24th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Kimble:
The footage wasn’t inflammatory or deceptive, but if convincing yourself of that makes you sleep better, then so be it. Regardless of whether or not it was inflammatory or deceptive, why do you think SAFE released it? Do they have some sort of secret agenda? Or do they care about the welfare of animals? And what’s wrong with that?
As Rebel Heart said, SAFE didn’t say which farm it was because they didn’t want the media picking on only the one farm. Rather, they wanted them to focus on the industry as a whole, as it’s a wide spread problem. Also, SAFE knew no good would come from disclosing which farm it was because the farming practices they were using were legal. Everything they were doing was legal, and that’s the problem. They knew no inspector would find against their farm from a legal point of view. The law allows cruelty. It’s the law that SAFE wants changed.
-
Bwakile:
Yes, the farm was operating within the law, and as I explained above, that’s the problem. The law allows cruelty. A lot of people seem to be struggling to tell the difference between what’s legally right, and what’s morally right. Just because the law says it’s okay to do something, it doesn’t mean it’s morally okay to do something. A clear example is the Electoral Finance Bill. The majority of people (minus a lot of Labour and Green Party supporters) knew the bill was morally wrong, and yet it was law.
Whether or not Mike King has any financial interests in this is irrelevant to the welfare of pigs. And even if he does have a financial interest (although I strongly don’t believe he does), SAFE doesn’t have a financial interest. And the pigs who live in their hell hole of a prison don’t have a financial interest in wanting to live their lives free of suffering.
Yes, breaking and entering is illegal, and it’s unfortunate that they couldn’t obtain their footage without breaking the law, but I believe that if breaking and entering is required to reveal the evil practices they filmed, then it’s morally right.
-
Bwakile:
How do you propose people find out where their meat really comes from then? Or what conditions animals have to live their lives in before they’re eaten? No pig factory farm will allow cameras in. No farm will tell us the truth, so illegal means are required. And as I said before, just because something’s illegal, doesn’t make it wrong.
Why are we crackpots? There is nothing wrong with having compassion for other living creatures.
-
Swinestein:
Or they’re so stressed by being stuck in such small cages, and living in such horrible conditions that they’re constantly distressed.
-
Swinestein:
How do you think wild pigs look after their piglets? Do wild pigs require farrowing crates?
-
Swinestein:
If the conditions that pigs are in cause them to fight, then that’s a reason not to put pigs in those conditions either. The only conditions pigs should have to live in are where they don’t suffer. If the pigs fight, them they’re living in unacceptable conditions and it is not a reason to use sow crates. The solution is to increase their freedom, not reduce it. All animals should only be farmed if they don’t suffer.
-
Swinestein:
An additional cost? What about the cost to the creature being farmed? You’re talking about a life. It’s not a packet of chips off the supermarket shelf. It’s a living creature. Quality of life is incomparable to money.
If a pig gets lonely or depressed in an individual pen, then that’s a reason not to use those practices. If you can’t farm pigs in a way where they don’t suffer, then you shouldn’t farm them at all.
-
What if instead of pigs in the conditions we saw, there were cats and dogs? There are cultures in the world where that’s acceptable. Would that be okay? If not, why not?
Taking it a step further, what if it was humans? What if pregnant women were kept in those crates for their own supposed wellbeing? Would that be okay?
May 24th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
>How do you think wild pigs look after their piglets? Do wild pigs require farrowing crates?
Wild pigs have very high mortaliy rates. Do wild pigs not suffer at all?
Swinestein:
>If a sow must be kept apart from others during her pregnancy it does not need to be inside a sow stall, which prevents her from even turning around. A single pen would offer the same solution, but at additional cost to the farmer.
At additional cost to the consumer, sows would get lonely and depressed in individual pens.
An additional cost? What about the cost to the creature being farmed? You’re talking about a life. It’s not a packet of chips off the supermarket shelf. It’s a living creature. Quality of life is incomparable to money.
I was just pointing out that it is always the consumer who pays.
Pregnant women are confined to bedrest for their own supposed wellbeing.
May 25th, 2009 at 12:31 am
“It’s not a packet of chips off the supermarket shelf. It’s a living creature.”
Potatoes have rights too, swinestein. What are ya? A potatoist?
You bastard.
May 25th, 2009 at 12:53 am
Lol Reid – but I believe he could be a tuberist
and swinestein- wild pigs don’t suffer when the come into the sights of my Remington .270 (affectionately known as “old Painless)
May 25th, 2009 at 2:00 am
Swinestein:
The suffering of any creature is terrible (with the exception of some of the worst criminals in my opinion), but to intentionally cause a creature to suffer is what’s disgusting.
-
Swinestein:
Pregnant women choose to lye on a nice comfortable bed, with the freedom to come and go if they want. Pregnant pigs are forced to live in a tiny cage with barely any room to move. Great comparison… How about we put pregnant women in tiny cages with barely any room to move??
-
Reid:
Potatoes can’t suffer and feel pain. Potatoes aren’t conscious beings and don’t have souls.
May 25th, 2009 at 8:26 am
Maxpower
If you want to tackle this from a moral point of view then you are on very shaky ground.
Whilst there are many laws that I don’t agree with, I don’t break them just because I think they are morally wrong.
For example, morally I don’t agree with many of the laws regarding social welfare, DPB, WFF etc but whilst they are within the law I have to accept them.
Say, hypothetically, there are people within SAFE recieving our money through government services, then I would find that morally unacceptable, but as it was within the law, I would have to accept it.
If you want to go around and break laws on moral grounds then everyone also has that right. Someone might even break into your house because it’s not moral that you have a nicer TV than them. Or people might stop paying taxes because the money is spent in immoral ways. It could all end with us being envious of the pigs.
If you want respect then you really should come up with a better strategy.
May 25th, 2009 at 9:04 am
“Potatoes can’t suffer and feel pain. Potatoes aren’t conscious beings and don’t have souls.”
Can’t speak about spuds but I am told that if you listen carefully you can hear the carrots scream as they are torn alive from the warm and moist comfort of the soil without benefit of an anaesthetic. And that’s not even getting started on the damage a fork can do to living tissue when handled without care by your average hungry, uncaring and rapacious Vegan.
May 25th, 2009 at 10:25 am
You see Maxpower
The Hikoi has arrived and no one now cares about the pork.
People just don’t have the attention span to solve the pigs problems and you will once again be the only person up at 2am moralising about the way things should be in your world.
May 25th, 2009 at 11:08 am
I haven’t eaten pork since I found out from Mike King that they are reared in such a cruel and disgusting manner. Good one Mike!
May 25th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Ah well I enjoyed eating my bacon & chookie bum nuts on sunday morning, while perusing the HoS.
Good one Mike!
May 25th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
The media piss me off on this one.
Why is every journalist in New Zealand like a Fair Go reporter?
The New Zealand media decide which angle they are going to take on a news story and they launch into it.
The tiny new Zealand viewing public gets mislead.
In a court of law there always two sides of the story. the prosecution and the defence, so luckily for David Bain he is not just facing a journalist or a TV programme where things are not tested.
I smelled a rat with King as soon as I saw that programme. Fake prick. It is quite sad how Kiwis blindly follow what is said on TV and do not test it.
So, as I have said before thank God for blogging, like this one, all credence to DF.
I have really lost all respect for TV journalists like Cameron Bennett (Kiwi big fish in little pond syndrome?) who I used to respect and that fat little moustache that does Close-up who is more suited to be on a childrens programme singing songs and doing tricks. Talk about a thin skinned joke. He makes Holmes look tough and somewhat competent. Scary.
Anyway, here are some cliches that apply to Mike baby, the funny guy:
Mike King tries to save his bacon.
Mike King protesteth too much.
Mike King calls kettle black.
Mike Kings in pig houses should not throw stones.
If he is so genuine in his shame and hate why doesn’t he donate half his porkie earnings to the SPCA?
Oh look, there goes a pig flying by Mike’s window.
May 25th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Robert Black I think you missed the point which is the outing of the cruel farming practises.
May 25th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
He-Man you dipshit – read the post heading
May 25th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Holy fuck some of the commentators in this thread are pathetic. Especially you Patrick Starr. And Robert Black – do you honestly think this is some big conspiracy planned out by Mike King, how fucking retarded can you get. Is it really that hard to comprehend that factory farmed pigs in NZ suffer? Watch the follow up to last week’s Sunday programme – defending Colin Kay and NAWAC is worse than seeing Helen Clark justifying herself whenever she gets called out on anything:
http://tvnz.co.nz/sunday-news/sunday-may-24-2009-2745693/video?vid=2755380
May 26th, 2009 at 8:46 am
That NAWAC guy is a complete schmuck. Colin Kay is too, especially about the way he lies about being ignorant about the pig farms.
May 26th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Bwakile:
You make a good point. In my opinion though, it depends on what the law is and what’s being done. I wouldn’t break the law to stop someone yelling abuse at someone, although I find it morally wrong. However, if the law said it was legal to bash women, I would break the law to stop people doing it. Just like I believe it’s acceptable to break the law if it helps prevent the suffering of innocent animals. It obviously comes down to people’s own personal judgement of what’s right and wrong. The law should reflect that, but sadly it doesn’t. Do you think SAFE would be justified in what they did if it was humans being kept at that farm instead of pigs?
-
David:
You’re an idiot.
-
Bwakile:
Lol, I was up until 2am because I’m doing shift work at the moment.
But anyway, what you said is sadly true, and I knew it’d happen. I knew people would forget all about it. I just hope a few people will remember, and will continue with their changed habits.
People have very short memories, and I believe it’s a major reason why Labour was able to stay in power for so long before the last election, for example. By the time the elections rolled around, everyone had forgotten about all the crap they did.
-
I find it amazing that so many people in here would label themselves as right wing, and believe in everyone’s right to personal freedoms, and yet when it comes to animals they couldn’t give a crap. They care about their right to eat cheap meat without giving a though about the animals right to live without suffering. We apply that sort of right to humans, but not animals. Why? Have people become so desensitised about where their food comes from that they don’t even see animals as living creatures anymore, but as a product to be eaten off the shelf?
We would all be horrified if we found humans living in the conditions these pigs are in. We’d be horrified to find out that humans are being born to die and then be packaged up, and put on a supermarket shelf. If there was a superior species to humans here on earth, would it be okay for them to farm us in the same way we farm animals?
I don’t want to detract from the awfulness of the holocaust committed by the Nazis, as it really was one of the most horrific acts in modern history. But right now, we have the equivalent of a million holocausts happening every day in the world, but to animals. If it was happening to humans there would be a global outcry, but no. People either think there’s nothing wrong with it, or they ignore it because they’re too lazy to change their eating habits, and it’s easier not to think about it.
I know most of what I’ve said will go right over most people’s heads. It would have gone right over mine not too long ago too. I know exactly where most people in here are coming from, because I used to agree with them. I used to think veggies were a bunch of crazy hippies too. But I eventually stopped making excuses for my actions that made no sense, and admitted I was wrong.
Is it too much to ask to pay a little bit more for pork that comes from a free range pig? You may like having that little bit of extra change in your wallet, but think of the life that the pig you’re eating lived. Think of how much they’d like to be living without pain and suffering. Don’t think of it as just another food product off the supermarket shelf. Think of it as an animal that was once living and breathing. Don’t kid yourself.
May 26th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Mike, if you are reading this, stand tall and don’t let the detractors grind you down. I personally admire your courage for admitting you made a mistake and fronting up to it. Kia kaha, Mike
Regarding breaking the law, a few minutes reflection should reveal a number of highly unpleasant individuals and organisations who kept well within the law. Hitler, Stalin, slave traders, the Spanish Inquisition, the Conquistadores, etc, etc,. The reason these people could not break the law is because they made it.
This is no different with the pork and battery hen industry. I recently sent a document to Sue Kedgley in Parliament proving that Carter knew all along about sow stalls. I have a number of other documents proving that the industry writes the codes, and even threatens NAWAC with legal action if they try to alter them. NAWAC are a bunch of spineless wimps who write regulations based on what the industry tell them. It is quite in order to break these laws because they are set up for a wealthy elite to maximise profits at the expense of animals, and not to protect the weaker or less ruthless members of society, which is the purpose of laws.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Well said Michael Morris.
Not only is there a number of people who committed evil acts while staying within the law, there are also a number of people who broke the law to commit good acts that changed the world.
We have laws in place to protect the weaker, more vulnerable humans in our society, but very little in place to protect those who are most vulnerable; animals.
Business profits are great and make the world go round. However, they are not acceptable if they’re gained through the cruelty and suffering of any creature, human or animal.