Radio 4 12:00 - 13:00 17/04/2012

[Posts: 6669Joined: 25 Feb 2001, 19:39Location: Surrey]

The BBC Radio 4 programme "You & Yours" has a "call-in" every Tuesday.

The programme tomorrow is dedicated to making Racing safer!

You can get your chance to voice your opinion for the programme at the following:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/yo ... ontact-us/

Regards

[Posts: 372Joined: 26 Feb 2011, 00:03Location: Stroud]

did anyone get on the show?

[Posts: 6669Joined: 25 Feb 2001, 19:39Location: Surrey]

It is today.

They are going to have a specialist guest today.

This show is highly listened to on Radio 4.

[Posts: 1699Joined: 07 Sep 2006, 10:32]

Good to hear the first caller Pinza, if he can be heard freely on the BBC You & Yours surely he should be welcomed back on here?

The bloke from the RSPCA (Gavin Grant) sounded more like Animal Aid.

[Posts: 372Joined: 26 Feb 2011, 00:03Location: Stroud]

will it be available for replay, missed it.

[Posts: 728Joined: 09 Jan 2011, 14:48]

The bloke from the RSPCA (Gavin Grant) sounded more like Animal Aid.

I don't think he sounded too bad to be honest. Much closer to Pitman than Mr Animal Aid.

On the other hand, I was disappointed to hear Richard Pitman completely bury his head in the sand with respects to the overproduction of racehorses.

[Posts: 1699Joined: 07 Sep 2006, 10:32]

The bloke from the RSPCA (Gavin Grant) sounded more like Animal Aid.

I don't think he sounded too bad to be honest. Much closer to Pitman than Mr Animal Aid.

On the other hand, I was disappointed to hear Richard Pitman completely bury his head in the sand with respects to the overproduction of racehorses.

I see others elsewhere shared my opinion of the RSPCA guy, what about his blatant lie that Jacob broke the whip rules in the National?
It's questionable whether an organisation like Animal Aid should have been on the show in the first place but Pitman did pull one good fact out of his hat, not one prosecution from the RSPCA last year involved a racehorse.

[Posts: 7355Joined: 31 May 2004, 16:52Location: Ubiquitous]

The bloke from the RSPCA (Gavin Grant) sounded more like Animal Aid.

Mr Grant's particularly genius utterance of the last few days (apart from a couple of the-fences-are-basically-dressed-walls mistruths) has been to suggest Bechers Brook shouldn't be modified again, but rather removed completely.

So that'd be what, a stretch of flat of at least two, possibly three furlongs between fence five and Foinavon, during which the competitors could (i) potentially pick up more speed and / or (ii) bunch to the inner rail to go the shortest way round the bend to Foinavon more than they otherwise might?

No cigar.

gc

[Posts: 483Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 22:05]

The bloke from the RSPCA (Gavin Grant) sounded more like Animal Aid.

I don't think he sounded too bad to be honest. Much closer to Pitman than Mr Animal Aid.

On the other hand, I was disappointed to hear Richard Pitman completely bury his head in the sand with respects to the overproduction of racehorses.

I see others elsewhere shared my opinion of the RSPCA guy, what about his blatant lie that Jacob broke the whip rules in the National?
It's questionable whether an organisation like Animal Aid should have been on the show in the first place but Pitman did pull one good fact out of his hat, not one prosecution from the RSPCA last year involved a racehorse.

I thought Gavin Grant from RSPCA was ok to be honest and he did make some valid points. It wasn't a blatent lie about Jacob breaking the whip rules. As we have already established on another thread and, following Cormack's email to the BHA, he did break them but the stewards decided to excercise discretion.

Animal Aid had a perfectly legitimate right to be on the programme. The programme was about safety in racing and as AA are against racing because of safety they have as much right to have their say as anyone else. You, me and others may not agree with them but that doesn't diminish their right to their views and to be able to air them. Unless of course you only think people who share your view should be on the show. This is a democracy and we allow free speech.

[Posts: 1699Joined: 07 Sep 2006, 10:32]

I thought Gavin Grant from RSPCA was ok to be honest and he did make some valid points. It wasn't a blatent lie about Jacob breaking the whip rules. As we have already established on another thread and, following Cormack's email to the BHA, he did break them but the stewards decided to excercise discretion.

Animal Aid had a perfectly legitimate right to be on the programme. The programme was about safety in racing and as AA are against racing because of safety they have as much right to have their say as anyone else. You, me and others may not agree with them but that doesn't diminish their right to their views and to be able to air them. Unless of course you only think people who share your view should be on the show. This is a democracy and we allow free speech.

Jacob did not break any rules, discretion is part of the rules, so it was an incorrect statement.
I noticed Grant immediately jumped on Pitman when he said there had been no prosecutions involving racehorses "But we've done some involving horses" as though it had some relevance.


It would have been sufficient just to have the RSPCA on, Animal Aid have well known terrorist links and don't deserve a place at the table.

[Posts: 935Joined: 28 Feb 2011, 13:01]

"Unless the BHA really respond here . . . I think the days of NH racing and the Grand National are numbered" Gavin Grant, RSPCA chief exec.

Mr Grant was appointed Chief Exec in January. He seems tough, determined and a good communicator. As I've said umpteen times before on here (I await the latest flurry of brickbats), it would be utter folly for racing to risk making an enemy of the RSPCA.

[Posts: 728Joined: 09 Jan 2011, 14:48]

It would have been sufficient just to have the RSPCA on

The RSPCA have very close ties with horse racing so it could be feasibly argued that there would be a conflict of interests and as such, wouldn't be guaranteed to offer a well rounded discussion. Animal Aid have no ties to horse racing and as they hold a firmly antithetical position, have every right to share a table in this particular debate.

Animal Aid have well known terrorist links and don't deserve a place at the table.

There are plenty of people within the sport itself with very unsavoury links. This is even before we get into the semantics of what constitutes "terrorism" or what constitutes a "link".

[Posts: 728Joined: 09 Jan 2011, 14:48]

*duplicate*