The title of this article also happens to be the numbers who were convicted of animal cruelty in England and Wales between 2005 and 2015.
This obviously shakes out at an average of 1,386 convictions each year, for each of those ten years.
I don’t doubt there is a large unknown area of cases that never come to light but if you don’t know of them then you cant factor them into anything. But I obviously don’t think that everyone culpable is caught and convicted.
Thus, this figure of 1,386 convictions per year doesn’t translate to there being 1,386 abusers in the country.
In reality you’d find the actual number of abusers to be ten or twenty times that, in the region of say 26,000 people UK wide.
That’s probably a fair figure of the numbers of people that walk among us who commit acts of animal cruelty – 26,000.
This would fill the stadium of a fair sized football club – just to give it context.
Does having 26,000 or so people of this type walking free among us seem high or not?
I’d say its high, even set against the population being what it is. 26,000 psychotic maniacs can do a lot of damage if they and their actions are left unchecked.
26,000 deranged lunatics of this type become your next rapists, child killers and so on. So, yes, I’d say 26,000 walking freely among us is far too many.
Some of them are so dangerous and so far gone that its an act of utter irresponsibility that they are allowed to have so many freedoms, rights and protections.
The only plus is that this approximation of 26,000 aren’t obviously organised in any way whatsoever, rather they are thousands of totally unconnected individuals who are only linked by virtue of their crimes and their psyche being the same.
Thank God they are too stupid and incapable to get organised in any sense and that they remain more of a disorganised blight scattered across the country.
However, even as a loose and disorganised presence they are an extremer danger.
In fact, in some ways it might be useful if they did all organise since it would then be a lot easier just to aim your artillery at that one large target.
What they are though is very committed. They are committed to carrying out these actions, they are committed to not taking responsibility and they are totally devoted to retaining their liberty.
They are scumbags, but in terms of their warped commitment, I’d give them five stars.
There are not 26,000 people that are sincerely and earnestly up for addressing them though.
The numbers of people prepared to plan, plot and be aritchects of their downfall are very much smaller and more rare than 26,000.
Lets put it this way, if I had 26,000 committed and smart people – this whole deal would be over by ‘tea time’.
In very short order you’d shift the UK from being a nation where morons like that get it easy to one where they don’t.
Why cant we get 26,000 people when psychotic clowns can muster that many lunatics? Easy. It takes no effort to be a psychotic lunatic and a destroyer of the innocent.
All it takes is for the person to be a truly horrible loser.
To push back against their actions and to reshape a nation along the lines of it being tough on such people – that takes real effort and brains.
That’s why there is a far smaller number of people that meaningfully square up to this problem than there are those creating the problem. It takes effort and most don’t want to make it.
It involves boring bits and most cant be doing with those. It takes having goals, which means thinking, and most people cant really be bothered thinking of ideas. It takes personal sacrifice and perhaps a level of risk, and most people don’t want to take it.
It takes a financial commitment to build things that are functional and most people prefer a free lunch.
And its for all those reasons that this loose spread of maybe 26,000 freaks run total rings around your emotions, the Government, the local council, the benefit system, the housing system, you name it.
And that emboldens them further because as ignorant and dim as they are, they have huge ego’s. They think they are extremely wily, and any system or public that’s soft and/or apathetic to their presence is as good as raising a white flag to them.
These are people that are wired up like hyena’s who will attack any weakness in the culture or system.
As mentioned, they are not a monolithic block who all live together in one place and who self identy as one. Its not like they’ve occupied a city and raised a flag. They exist, but not in a sense that a hypothetical ‘army’ could march in and ‘take by the town’.
The only thing they respond to or that is fitting is a strong and tough culture. These people hate anything weak. That’s why they prey on the weak. But they have a fearful respect of a culture that is strong, robust, but still just.
We have a culture that’s too soft. We have a societal response that’s insufficient.
We certainly have a political and legal response that’s not fit for purpose. So you can see why even 26,000 such people would be able to cause such ripples of evil across the country.
Its not that they are efficient at it or brilliant. Its that they have lacked sufficient genuine push back and counter reaction. A snail would beat a hare in a race if the hare was dead. These offenders are the ‘snail’. And societal reaction to it is the hare.
As criminal sub sets go, this approx of 26,000 nationwide is quite small when compared to say burglary and theft.
While it would be quite the task to neutralise all the thieves and burglars, a criminal sub set that comprises of around 26,000 can be plausibly surrounded as a problem – and greatly neutralised.
Convince the state to perceive and treat them as a serious threat culpable of heinous actions and deserving of being punished in accordance – and you suddenly have the foundations for a totally different culture.
Fail to convince the state and you’ll forever be reduced to being extremely limited in what you can do and nothing will change for the good. Its that simple when it comes down to it.
And convincing the state means presenting them with specific goals or demands that are at least rooted in reality. No use asking them to ‘end animal abuse’.
The cathphrase has no practical meaning to them. Instead ask for very specific things, if that’s greater jail time or whatever. Its more workable to push for one or two very clear and specific aims than it is to merely shout ‘end this or that’ at them.
For the record, less than 8% of those convicted get any kind of custodial sentence at all – short or otherwise.
When you understand and see the level of violence involved and when you understand how there is a consensus among criminal psychologists as to how dangerous they are, there’s something far wrong when a mere 8% see the inside of a prison.
Wouldn’t it be a noble and worthy goal to shift that 8% to EIGHTY?
Could that be done? Sure. What would it take? The political will. Where does the political will come from? From the level of coherent and rational demands seen and heard by the public.
See it like making a cake, you need all these ingredients and you need to mix them the correct way – then you have a cake. Miss out some ingredients and fail to mix the right measures in – you get a bowl of gloop that’s not a cake.
You don’t need to match their numbers person for person to beat them. If there are 26,000 or so lunatics surfing on the fact that present conditions give them a giant free pass, it really doesn’t take 26,000 full on and all in people to push for the conditions that would mess them right up.
I’d go as far as to say you could achieve this with a co-ordinated effort with a mere 1% of their number. Maybe even as low as half a % if they were top class people.
This may not sound many, but you know we live in a somewhat apathetic era in which folks want to do and give the least but expect the most back. So while it may seem a very small number of people that you’d need, this is not an era for easily finding good and righteous people.
This class of offender aren’t getting it easy because they are sophisticated criminals with a battery of top lawyers behind them.
They are low life and if they get a lawyer its only some bored state appointed one.
They are getting it easy because those who are not them have and still are tolerating them and tolerating their actions. Spewing tons of venom about them on the Internet isn’t creating viable conditions in which there is zero tolerance.
Only clear and concise goals that shape things so that by law society is zero tolerance toward them will you wipe the smile off their faces and deal with this class of offender once and for all.
I keep saying this though. Truth is that most people aren’t interested in setting goals and achieving them. If they were we would know.
Most folk just want to read a headline and cry about ‘injustice’. That’s the unfortunate yet harsh status quo.
People don’t want to read these days, unless its Twitter bite sized.
Because they don’t read they don’t learn or understand. Rather than read, people are reactionary and prefer to launch onto social media to tell the world how emotional they are over the latest cruelty case.
And that’s about as far as it goes most times.
There is less of an inclination toward logical and rational answers and far more of a leaning toward the emotional nothingness.
You could create two videos, one with a wee dog and some sad music and that would get more views than if you make a video that actually had the fixes so that said dog need not be sad!
Like I said – the tendency is toward being emotionally driven and not logically driven (which is what it must be).
You don’t merely have very sound moral argument’s you can make here, you also have extremely solid rational and logical arguments that can be made as to why Government must treat this as a crime of great magnitude.
There’s no need to resort to losing your shit online because you have so many brilliant argument’s that you could be making. There’s no need for anyone to ever be at a loss as to what they can do. There are literally hundreds of things that can be done, all it takes is to think of one or to take on one of the scores and scores I’ve proposed.
Animal cruelty is a paradox in this country. Their numbers are managably small. Their actions are unquestionably bad and indicative of more bad within them. They have zero public empathy. They are not organised nor do they have any resources as such. They have zero moral high ground while you have all the good arguments and positions that you can use. You even have outlets that you can reach out to, be part of, help grow.
Have a flick through the local press this week. See how many are up in court by Friday and see how many continue to get off far too easily and lightly.
The reason those conditions are our current norm is that too many people tolerate it by way of not fighting back against it.
And fighting back against it isn’t fitting out online. Fighting back is looking at the extent of the problem and going after the core.
Fighting back is having clear and lucid goals and doing that which draws attention and discussion to them as concepts. Fighting back is getting right behind anyone or any grass roots movement that are clearly doing all they can to get real solutions in place.
That’s what fighting back is.
And that’s what there isn’t nearly enough of.
And that’s why by Friday it will be same old, same old.
‘Tis the truth.