DID you know UKIP have an interesting policy on animal welfare?  I'm a UKIP sceptic but their manifesto on animal welfare had me hooked! I thought for a minute, "I could quite like this party!" Their manifesto reads, "animals...deserve to be valued as part of our global diversity, treated compassionately by humans and should be spared unnecessary suffering."  

 "Fantastic!" I thought! I read on. They quite clearly set themselves out as potential protectors of wildlife and biodiversity and as opponents to animal experimentation and vivisection. I started to like them. Admittedly this is safe ground. No one wants to see animals in pain unnecessarily. There are other options such as stem cell and genetic research. But they go on....

 They are opposed to live transportation of farm animals and seek to improve the conditions of such animals. Wonderful! It makes great reading but I'm afraid it doesn't quite last!

 They begin to discuss the issue of ritual animal slaughter. It's a contentious issue. In this country all animals have to be rendered unconscious before they are slaughtered , but there are exceptions.

Muslims and Jews slaughter animals while they are conscious. I know nothing about these methods of slaughter. UKIP are essentially opposed to these exceptions and want them reviewed, and from a purely animal welfare perspective I can see why people might regard their stance as good policy. But there is a problem!

Adolf Hitler had exactly the same policy as a way of systematically demonising the Jewish people as uncivilised and barbaric.  How ironic!!

A political party that can't stop romanticising itself as the true heir of Churchill and the glorious victory of Britain against Germany in World War II has at least one identical policy to Nazi Germany. But let's give them the benefit of the doubt. This is an animal cruelty issue. So, their opinion on hunting with dogs (fox hunting) will be consistent with the rest of their policy, right?

 Wrong! They say they don't want to overturn the 2004 Hunting Act (ban) but would allow referenda at local level, suggesting that if there is enough support, hunting with dogs could be re-established in certain areas. I wonder what established animal welfare groups think of that?  

 A couple of months ago UKIP were having their annual gala. In order to raise money they wanted to auction an antique lion skin that had been donated to them – a product of trophy hunting. Tasteless perhaps, but not illegal. UKIP seemed oblivious to the contradiction that their manifesto seemed to oppose animal cruelty and yet at the same time they wanted to raise money from a product of hunting by treating it as an object of desire. Again, what do you think animal rights groups had to say, especially the ones trying to end trophy hunting and who genuinely "value animals as part of our global diversity?" The lion skin was withdrawn but without apology.

 My point is that UKIP wears a lot of different masks. They say many things that seem like common sense, but with a little analysis the truth becomes apparent.

In this case animal cruelty is something that foreigners do. When the British do it or have done it, it is acceptable.

This isn't even really about animal rights. It's bandwagon to deliver something more sinister.

I don't trust UKIP. I question their motives all the time. There are others issues worth investigating, for example immigration, global population, unemployment and the environment.

I would truly like to believe that UKIP could take part in a rational debate on those issues without delivering an essentially xenophobic and racist message but I'm sure they cannot.

– Gordon Elsmore, Bream.