 So this is a very disturbing incident. It should shock you but maybe it'll make you think as well. So a 54 year old man was found guilty of causing unnecessary suffering to a protected animal in Abington. So around 2 30 to 3 30 p.m on 10th of August last year, Flintham was seen by members of the public grabbing a wild goose in Abbey Meadows Abington. The Flintham stamped on the goose, kicked it and attempted to break their neck before taking them away from the park. He was charged in January and found guilty in court on Monday. Policeman Ben Little said, This was a very disturbing incident committed in broad daylight in a busy public park. Those that witnessed this incident were no doubt distressed by what they saw and I'm pleased with the sentence handed down to Flintham which reflects the offence. I'm particularly pleased that he would be disqualified from keeping any animal for the next five years. We will not tolerate such behaviour and anyone who seeks to cause unnecessary suffering to animals can expect to face the consequences of their actions. Wait, wait a second. Do they farm geese in UK? Wow, what is this? Is this a goose farm? Gresingham? You probably think of ducks after all. They refer to themselves as the remarkable duck people. They have bespoke breed called the Gresingham duck. It is therefore enlightening to learn that the company is also the country's largest producer of geese. Wow, Gresingham? That sounds familiar. Weren't they exposed recently? But anyways, this here is probably one of the most clearest displays of moral hypocrisy I've ever seen. Well, ever? I don't know. There's been some competitors. You broke this poor animal's neck, which is terrible, but this happens all the time in duck farming and you see it in turkey farming. Animals having their necks broken. You see them just being stomped on, brutalised, gassed, killed and eaten. Now, if this was unnecessary suffering, by the words of this constable here, what would you deem as necessary? Would you think that the suffering and killing and torture that happens to the birds in the meat industry as necessary suffering? Because if it's not necessary to eat their bodies, then I definitely don't see their entailed suffering as necessary. This man here, he was of no fixed abode. So maybe he didn't have a home. Maybe he was houseless. Would it be necessary suffering if he stomped on the bird to take them away and eat them? Even if he had some other option to eat? Would you still call it unnecessary suffering? If you still think him stomping on that bird's neck, breaking their neck would be unnecessary suffering if Mark took them away and ate them, then why wouldn't you think that it's unnecessary suffering to do this en masse to around probably, I think it's about a billion birds in the UK chickens, including ducks and geese and turkeys. One is unnecessary suffering when he just stomps on a wild goose because they're quote unquote a protected animal, but the ones that are not protected, it's okay to mass breed them in factories and cut their head off to eat them. Complete and utter moral hypocrisy. What is the morally significant difference in terms of what the bird experiences in this situation? Right? If anything, you could say well the bird was wild and free and they didn't experience the suffering of a factory farm and what Mark did was, you know, completely fine and humane. The bird was humanely slaughtered, you know, like, I mean, you could apply the same arguments people use to justify eating flesh to this situation here and just go, well, it's fine. And if Mark ate the body afterwards, you could just say it's fine. Well, I wouldn't think it's fine because I don't think slaughtering animals for food is justifiable considering the context of our current situation. But let's just see what the commenters think. The state of that psychopath Sally says, if you think he's a psychopath, what do you think about the current state of animal agriculture in the UK? They're mass breeding geese and then slaughtering them. How about I just pay Mark to stomp on the geese's neck so I can eat the goose? How about that? Would that make it morally justifiable then? What have you done at behind closed doors? What have you started a business doing this, grabbing geese, snapping their neck, and we just kept paying Mark to continuously snap the necks of geese so we could eat them, right? So maybe we wanted goose for dinner. Maybe we wanted goose fat on our potatoes. Maybe we just wanted to keep paying Mark. And maybe his business grew and grew. And then he thought, you know what, why am I going to keep grabbing wild geese? They're pretty hard to catch. What I'm going to do instead is I'm going to start farming geese. I've got such a demand now. In order to meet that demand, the miners will start factory farming these geese. So I'm going to have to breed them, put them in these factories and mass supply. Now, who here would be more responsible for the cruelty? Would it be Mark? Or would it be the demand? If you're accusing Mark of being a psychopath, right, but you make up the collective demand for chicken, turkeys, and duck, right? When you go out to the supermarket. Why don't the public bear any responsibility for the demand they're creating for magnitudes more suffering and death in those industries? But Mark is all of a sudden a psychopath. Now, I do think that Mark is quite disturbed for doing this. Trust me, I'm on the goose's side here. And I'm actually, I actually agree with all you people who are saying he should have served prison time. So yeah, I agree. I agree. What about animal agriculture? What about supporting, funding animal agriculture? Samantha says, disgusting. How can he do that and not get sent to prison at all? Disgusting little creature. I agree, Samantha. Please boycott animal products in the UK if you think what he did is wrong. Don't create the demand for horrific, egregious suffering and killing in slaughter for other animal products. Roger says, hopefully someone gives him a good hiding so he can reflect on the error of his ways. Now, if someone was abusing an animal, I wouldn't stand in the way from anyone who stepped in violently to stop it. I'm not a complete passivist. So Roger, I think you should let justice take its course after the fact. But if someone's abusing an animal right there in the moment, then yeah, jump in, bash him. I'll join you. But if you if you're willing to give someone a someone a hiding after the fact of them doing something bad when I think it should be left up to the police at that point, then what should happen to animal agriculture? And what should maybe she just punch herself in the face every time you go buy a chicken sandwich? Because come on, Roger, think about it. Think about it. You're paying for exactly the same if not worse over the course of your life than what Mark's done here on this one occasion. It's just like, okay, so close your eyes. I pay Mark to do exactly the same thing in order for a goose sandwich. What is the difference? What is difference? Disconnect? You're still creating demand for that suffering and killing. Should have got time. I agree for violating the rights of this goose. Now, people aren't going to say, well, they lived a good life, you know, and they killed them quickly. The wild goose lived a good life compared to the factory farm goose. So it's completely fine. Obviously, people believe that these animals should have fundamental rights, at least not to be murdered like what Mark did to this goose. So they should agree with animal rights across the board. So much for British justice can think this is an even justice. It's just a waste of time. Whereas the retribution for such cowardly act can ask yourself the same question every time you go by a chicken sandwich. So there you go. But what do you think at home? What do you think the morally significant difference is between Mark doing this out in public just because they're a protected bird, the wild goose? Geese are actually farmed here in the UK. So people can have goose fat on their potatoes for Christmas dinner. How is there a difference between what Mark did out there when he grabbed the wild goose, snapped their neck? And if he was homeless, what if he just grab that goose to eat? Would that make it okay? Would that make it not unnecessary suffering? If you think what Mark did is causing unnecessary suffering to a bird and should be imprisoned and beaten and all these things, then why don't you apply the same logic to what happens to all the animals in animal agriculture and you're creating the demand for it. Just see that hypocrisy please and live vegan.