I assumed the overriding sentiment pertains to the fact that Antonio may be using the Zouma offence to draw attention to his own interests which the situation does not merit and can come across as almost detracting, not defending, the animal abuse that has been perpetrated.

For me the correct response would therefore be that they could both be considered cowardly crimes however comparing one to another is neither here nor there in answering the original question regarding the animal abuse.

If someone asked me what my views on racism were, I wouldn't compare it to murder, for example. The resulting answer would neither have context to nor address the original question asides from creating a new debate around an imaginary moral barometer for crime. I therefore understand why it could be misconstrued as someone wishing to draw attention to their own vested interests which would by proxy distract from the point at hand.

It could well be the case, or said, that Antonio's point was to draw attention to the scale of the reaction to it as opposed to an equally condemnable crime. If I understand correctly that this is your point I do of course agree I just think it's a bad tactic/approach. Not a fan of the phrase 'race card' as it can be manipulated to disregard genuine, valid, important points so perhaps the wording around the arguments has disguised the sentiments.

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

1. Exectly, this is why people/businesses hire PR professionals, it's a mundane question which does not provoke or seek to illicit an answer that is going to be remotely interesting, relative,
informative or helpful.

2. Perhaps I disagree with you on this one. Not saying Antonio is in the wrong, and noting I have already addressed my opinions on the usage of the phrase 'race card', I still would suggest that again whilst Antonio is making a perfectly valid point, the interpretation of what he has said or the motives for it, in the eyes of some, could be a reflection of the larger conversation around the approach to the battle against racism on a societal scale. I feel as though it can sometimes fall into the massively unhelpful domain of tedious white noise and rhetoric which could again possibly be considered to detract from more tangible solutions and the addressing of the problem, or other problems (animal abuse). The sentiment could therefore quite easily be interpreted as 'nothing else matters (animal abuse) asides from this which I feel obliged to constantly make noise about as it concerns me and not other beings and I will use every opportunity including the raising of other concerns to turn the focus back to my grievances (as they are more important)'.

Again, using my previous analogy, it could be the equivalent of:

Q. Do you think the serial rapist should be put to death?
A: Do you think my wife's murderer should be put to death? Because he wasn't! (Good opportunity for humour here but will keep it formal for now)

It could easily come across as 'I don't care about a serial rapist, he didn't kill anyone, or anyone I know, let's talk about me and my situation'.

Just an opinion BTW I am not claiming to have any answers or even be in the right here, always useful to see/listen to other perspectives.

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

Thanks now I am just imaging Miss Marple being the victim of a sexual crime.

I wouldn't read to much into the analogy, I am no crime buff I for some reason just went to the far end of the scale which was the most deplorable crimes. There is at least another one of course but I consider it too distasteful to even write about it, especially in this context.

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

Fair enough - it's an interesting take.

I interpreted his comments as 'lets put some perspective on what he's done' rather than not caring - he said he thought it was wrong within his first few sentences.

Firstly, I am not a 'pet' person. Primarily because I do not want the duty of care that comes with owning one. I don't want to have to worry about feeding a pet. I don't want to worry about the health of a pet. I don't want the responsibility of exercising a pet or making sure it is kept stimulated. I don't want the worry or the cost of ensuring it is looked after when I go away on holiday.

Because if you do own a pet animal, then this is what you are meant to do. No if's or buts. And if you don't, then it is more than reasonable for people to hold you account. And if you mistreat it, then you are an absolute s***-c*** of the highest order.

There is no what-aboutery with this.

People who mistreat animals are sick b******s who any right-thinking person wants nothing to do with. End of story.

And yes, mistreating a pet in this way should be a criminal act, as should any act of negligence when a duty of care is involved.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

I'm a cat person and think he's a total c*** for what he's done.
We do have to be careful not to set a precident that cannot be followed for all similar acts of cruelty. In time when police are arresting pet owners and spending time on the case; for mistreating their pets, instead of stabbers and rapists because of not enough time or man power; our opinion will change as to which is more important!