This fate may have been preferable to the one suffered by a hamster in Telegraph writer James Delingpole’s care: “Unfortunately, owing to an incident that shall forever be shrouded in mystery to spare the feelings of the child that reversed the wooden push-toy train on to it, the hamster perished on our watch, and we hurried to the pet shop to buy two more—a hammy for us and a new one for the school.”
One of the hamsters was a “biter,” and Delingpole ultimately released it in a park, where he hoped that “manky, smelly urban foxes would take care of the rest.” He wrote about these hamster hijinks back in November. In the current Spectator, he reveals that the column earned him a rather menacing letter from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, specifically from the improbably named “Emma Nutbrown.”
Dear James,
I’m sure you will not be surprised to learn that the RSPCA has received a complaint following your column dated 21 November.
We were surprised, however, that it was felt appropriate to trivialise and broadcast a criminal act which may well have led to animal suffering.
Can I remind you that whatever your personal ‘sliding scale of values’ may be it remains an offence to fail to meet an animals needs and/or cause it unnecessary suffering? Those found guilty face a maximum six-month prison sentence and/or a £20,000 fine.
Obviously we urge everyone who buys a pet to be sure they have the resources and commitment to care for it for the rest of its life. Should you nevertheless ever find yourself in a similar situation again we would urge you to contact a reputable animal rescue organisation so that your pet has the opportunity to live out its life free from harm.
Regards, Emma Nutbrown
Delingpole’s musings on this latest nanny-state encroachment are hilarious and, though this may be hard to believe of a piece about dead hamsters, thought-provoking.
One of the things I’d hoped would happen in these dark times of Islamist threat and economic crisis is that we’d all get a sense of perspective. Animal rights, it has always struck me, is the product of a spoilt, decadent age when pampered bleeding hearts have nothing better to do than throw themselves protectively over TB-infested badgers or try to stop people in red coats enjoying themselves. Once these nutcases had something real to worry about—keeping their job, say; not seeing their country incorporated in the Dar al-Islam—I naively imagined that rationality would be restored.
“We want our liberty back,” he concludes. “There are votes in it.” Think anyone’s listening?
add a comment