Is animal sanctuary justified in ordering the deaths of cows and pigs

We’ve had some shocking charity scandals in the news in recent years, the Oxfam sex scandal for one, so that the situation at Raystede Centre for Animal Welfare might seem, by comparison, to be a trivial matter.

Sunday, 5th May 2019, 1:32 pm
Updated Sunday, 5th May 2019, 1:33 pm
Raystede, Ringmer

Your paper reported on it in May last year when Rupert Taylor wrote about the protest asking Raystede to stop killing animals for the café.

Since the eating of animal products is still so widespread, it might be that many people are not shocked by Raystede’s decision to sell them.

They are exploiting the vulnerable they were there to protect.

Miss Raymonde-Hawkins MBE, a self-described non-meat eater, founded Raystede in 1953 for the purpose of protecting any and all animals from cruelty and preventing unnecessary suffering.

The meat-eating trustees at Raystede, for their own convenience, have chosen to categorise the slaughter of farmed animals as necessary suffering, despite the fact that animal products are now known to be not only unnecessary but detrimental to human health.

Certainly no one could call bacon and beef burgers healthy food.

So, how can those in charge at Raystede justify ordering the deaths of the cows and pigs out of whom they were made?

Charity trustees do not have the right to disregard the governing documents of the charity they serve, just because it suits them to do so.

They should be required to run the sanctuary by the principles on which it was founded, or step aside and make way for someone who will.

Edward Burbank,

Clarendon Villas