Here is an image of what, in the opinion of Andrew Murrison MP, is a “less serious” crime:
Andrew Murrison loses no sleep over images like this. What he is really passionate about are critical issues such as bedroom tax. Do I even need to tell you that Andrew Murrison consistently votes in favour of fox hunting and “culling” badgers?
Andrew Murrison claims that murdering animals is not as serious as other crimes… such as murder. What exactly is the difference though? The same amount of suffering is caused, and a life is taken away. If anything, animal abuse is even more cowardly than child abuse because the victim in all cases does not have a voice or any protection from the law. Furthermore, compared to adult humans, animals do not have a cognitive appraisal of the situation; In other words, they do not understand why they are being tortured. So tell me Andrew, at what point does this become a “serious crime” to you? Where do you draw the line? Is it when:
Ten dogs are stamped on?
One million dogs are stamped on?
One child is stamped on?
Your child is stamped on?
You are stamped on?
Andrew Murrison claimed that the sentence for animal abuse should not be raised because then it would become equal to those of rape and murder. However, he failed to provide any sort of rationale for why this should not be the case. Afterall, if you give real sentences to animal abusers then you won’t have to sentence the same people again later when they commit human murder and rape.
He projects his own personal prejudice towards animals onto the general population, assuming everyone else will have the same opinions as him. What about the collective 800,000 who signed a petition to jail the Frankish brothers?
By the way, you are not reading his response incorrectly; Andrew Murrison thought that the Frankish Brothers went to prison. He also spelled his own name incorrectly. He also ignored and deleted the first letter that was sent to him. What an absolute bell-end.
His original response to our follower:
Thank you. I can’t find your original letter on my email account. I am not aware of the animal cruelty issue you cite but note the perpetrators went to prison which is not inconsequential and definitely not ‘paltry.’The Attorney General reviews cases and will call in and seek judicial review of those that appear to be overly lenient according to existing law and sentencing guidelines. The trouble with increasing potential sentences – I get calls for this to happen for a wide range of offences, particularly highly emotive ones as here – is that they then become concentrated at the top end so the really heinous ones like rape and murder are punished in the same way as those that most people would see as less serious.
What if that was your life Andrew? Then would you take it seriously?