The thing at the top of the picture above is not an animal as it may be a pig or a cow, possibly a pow, the animal at the bottom of the picture is probably a dog and therefore not allowed in Ramsgate Harbour.
I sent this query to the council:
Subject: the live animal export issue
Date: 18/05/2011 10:19:37 GMT Daylight Time
Hi ***** could you sort this one out soonest for me as if I have got it wrong then I think I ought to print a retraction, I think this is going to be very emotive issue and as you know I have a fairly high web presence, judging from the amount of comment recently possibly more than some of the local papers.
It relates to my blog post about the animal exports, see http://thanetonline.blogspot.com/2011/05/import-and-export-of-live-animals.html
Two councillors have commented publicly on the post and it think I recognise the comments of at least one other.
My questions relate to the repeal of harbour bylaw 44, if this had any relationship with the live animal export issue, if the proper procedures were followed in repealing it, if its repeal is completed, in fact any information you can give me that clarifies the issue.
There are some questions below, although as I don’t really fully understand the issue according to Ken Gregory and Simon Moores, so there may be other questions that I should have asked as well that would have helped clarify the issue.
Did the bylaw cover the port or just the Royal harbour? Ken implies it didn’t.
Did any animal cargoes go through Ramsgate while the bylaw was in place?
Where did the proposal to repeal the bylaw come from?
Has the bylaw repeal process been completed?
I noted that the report recommending the repeal is dated the same date as the council meeting to decide if the bylaw repeal process was to be started, does this mean that the statutory notification period wasn’t followed correctly?
Probably whether the bylaw would have stopped live animal exports would only have been discovered when the council had instigated judicial action based on the bylaw to prevent live animal exports.
Not sure if you can expand on this one, possibly the export company has already successfully fought such an action, which is part of the reason for the repeal of the bylaw, as I said anything to expand on this would help.
Here is their reply:
Subject: Live animal exports from Ramsgate
Date: 20/05/2011 09:08:29 GMT Daylight Time
We're aware that understandably there's been a lot of discussion on your site about the issue of live animal exports from Ramsgate, especially with reference to the repealing the byelaw at Ramsgate Harbour that bans dogs.
We're also aware that people have been keen to see a statement from the council and I'm happy to supply you with that, which hopefully clearly states the situation. As you will see, the repeal of the byelaw has no relation whatsoever to the commencement of live animal exports at the Port of Ramsgate:
"The byelaw has not yet been repealed, so the shipments taking place now are totally unrelated to that. The byelaw has nothing to do with livestock movements, as it was based on animals that could potentially transmit rabies. This is not the case with the livestock involved in the export.
Even if this was not the case, the byelaw is overridden by European law, adopted by Britain, guaranteeing free trade between member countries. As a result, the council is duty bound, as set out in law, to provide the Port of Ramsgate for the use of vessels for legal trade, including livestock movements."
This information will be appearing on our website shortly, as part of a series of frequently asked questions. I'd be grateful if you would also put this statement up on your site to set the record straight on this issue.
Press and Media Manager
Thanet District Council
This is Bylaw 44
PART VII - ANIMALS
44. (1) Save as hereinafter provided in paragraph (3) of the byelaw, no
person being in charge of an animal shall cause, permit or suffer
such animal to enter or remain in the harbour and, without
prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, no person shall take or
keep such animal on board, or land such animal from, any vessel
within the harbour.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1) of this byelaw, the owner of an
animal shall be deemed to be in charge thereof unless the owner shall
prove that, at the time the offence against this byelaw was committed,
the animal had been placed in or taken into the charge of some other
(3) This byelaw shall not apply to the use by any constable, or member of
Her Majesty's Customs and Excise or any member of Her Majesty's
Armed Forces, of any dog or other animal in connection with the
detection of crime or the enforcement of the law.
This is my formal retraction of any misleading information I may have published about this issue.