12.4.12 Donkeys In The Mail

I should start by saying that I have nothing against donkeys.  They play no part in my life, but their absence is neither a drawback, nor a cause for celebration.  Donkeys are fine animals, useful to many, but rather irrelevant to my own life.  The same is true for Mrs MWSC.  We are not 'donkey people', if such a term has any meaning.  We wish them well, but that's as far as it goes.

It was with some surprise therefore that Mrs MWSC received in the post, a week ago, an unsolicited letter, pleading the case of neglected donkeys.  The personally addressed circular was aimed at generating some sympathy for poor abandoned and mistreated donkeys.  Who could possibly look at Laurel and Hardy and not be affected.  I am of course NOT referring to the comedy duo, but the two donkeys sharing the same names, below.

"Unloved, abandoned and slowly starving to death - Laurel and Hardy's desperate fight for life" appears in large bold print below the picture (that's not a sentence, by the way).

The sob-story on the front page explains how Laurel, Hardy and Tim (a Shetland Pony) were rescued, after nearly starving to death.  Lice infested, matted coats, hair loss, patches of raw skin, long and twisted hooves, and weight loss were all relayed via a rather unpalatable narrative.  We also needed to know that their bedding was covered in urine and faeces.  The story went on to explain how The Donkey Sanctuary was able to make everything okay again, all relayed in a style akin to a children's story.  I have every sympathy for donkeys who suffer in this way.  I dislike, though, the manner in which charitable donations are sought.

The letter is so cheesy, and there's no detail at all to support the 'fairytale-like' account that shows us how wonderful The Donkey Sanctuary is; it could all have happened in the 1960s (?)  The requests for amounts ranging from £5 to £30 tell us what such a donation "could help" towards.  This turn of phrase is meaningless.  I could ask you for a tenner, as it "could help towards the cost of" anything I care to mention - but it might not.

I am afraid I'm not moved enough to send money, or set up a direct debit in favour of donkeys.  I am curious as to how The Donkey Sanctuary came to write to Mrs MWSC, thinking she might be inclined to contribute - it's a mystery how she was 'chosen'.  I would however, have liked to learn more on an associated matter, and may well have decided to contribute with more of a direct approach.  I am talking of punishment for the people mistreating animals.

Why is it that mistreated animals are cared for by a charity, whose existence depends massively on public support and donations, when there's not much said or done about the people responsible?  I would like to see those who mistreat animals fined-to-the-fucking-hilt for causing such pain and grief, and locked up as well.  Seize assets, levy fines, and make the fuckers pay.  Rather than me, or Mrs MWSC, paying £10 per month on a direct debit, why isn't the person who caused grief being made to pay monthly for the horrendous actions that caused the issue?  Accountability is missing from society these days.  I will contribute to the fund that sets out an aim to track down those who abuse animals, and beat the shit out of them, then make them pay financially!

As for the rest of the junk mail last week, it's all being 'recycled' - interchanged and posted back to the senders.

...