The governemnt couldn't get foxes so they got dogs
http://news.sky.com/story/1519982/controversial-puppy-breeding-farm-gets-go-ahead
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/07/16/animal-testing-beagle-puppy-farm-plans-approved-yorkshire_n_7808812.html
"Leading animal rights campaigners have condemned the approval for a controversial farm that will breed beagles for scientific tests
The go-ahead has been attacked by the National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS) as a “betrayal of the animals, the public and science.”
Queen guitarist Dr Brian May said: “I am sickened to hear that this facility is to go ahead, ignoring the views of the public and local authorities and condemning these best friends of man to thousands of unethical and unnecessary tests. This is an appalling message to send out to the world.”
Comedian and animal lover Ricky Gervais has also tweeted about the news, stating: "They can't torture the foxes, so they'll torture the hounds. Government allows beagles to be bred for testing."
Dogs taking part in scientific experiments are made to inhale toxic substances through masks, force fed through tubes, and are strapped in harnesses while being injected with drugs, said NAVS.
Substances tested on dogs included weed killer, pharmaceutical drugs, and industrial chemicals."
Those poor beagles. This makes me ashamed to be British.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/07/16/animal-testing-beagle-puppy-farm-plans-approved-yorkshire_n_7808812.html
"Leading animal rights campaigners have condemned the approval for a controversial farm that will breed beagles for scientific tests
The go-ahead has been attacked by the National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS) as a “betrayal of the animals, the public and science.”
Queen guitarist Dr Brian May said: “I am sickened to hear that this facility is to go ahead, ignoring the views of the public and local authorities and condemning these best friends of man to thousands of unethical and unnecessary tests. This is an appalling message to send out to the world.”
Comedian and animal lover Ricky Gervais has also tweeted about the news, stating: "They can't torture the foxes, so they'll torture the hounds. Government allows beagles to be bred for testing."
Dogs taking part in scientific experiments are made to inhale toxic substances through masks, force fed through tubes, and are strapped in harnesses while being injected with drugs, said NAVS.
Substances tested on dogs included weed killer, pharmaceutical drugs, and industrial chemicals."
Those poor beagles. This makes me ashamed to be British.(edited 8 years ago)
That is the cost of progress.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
So? I don't see the problem here. Mice and Chimpanzees are used in testing all the time (though chimps not in the UK I think). Why should dogs be any different? It's the price of progress.
Nothing more irritating than seeing these some of the pseudo animal rights activists who get out the pitchforks when it suits them, and go home and use cosmetics tested on monkeys and drugs tested on both mice and primates.
Testing on dogs has been critical in getting medical advances out to the public. ECG, Insulin, and certain treatments for prostate cancers are the ones that spring to mind. You can't seriously rail against this and then go ahead and use them when it conveniences you.
Nothing more irritating than seeing these some of the pseudo animal rights activists who get out the pitchforks when it suits them, and go home and use cosmetics tested on monkeys and drugs tested on both mice and primates.
Testing on dogs has been critical in getting medical advances out to the public. ECG, Insulin, and certain treatments for prostate cancers are the ones that spring to mind. You can't seriously rail against this and then go ahead and use them when it conveniences you.
(edited 8 years ago)
Why is everyone such mewling idiots?
Cry for the slugs you pick from their own home and crush to death so your precious flowers stay pretty or gtfo
Cry for the slugs you pick from their own home and crush to death so your precious flowers stay pretty or gtfo
(edited 8 years ago)
Oh for the love of ****.
It's bloody difficult to get to experiment on animals, particularly larger ones, in this country. It requires a rigorous application to the Home Office explaining precisely how and why they will be used, and justifying any numbers.
The obvious objective is scientific research, with numerous benefits. Despite the crowing from the animal rights lobby, they're nothing more than a fringe group of fruitbats and bores. If you want to make a philosophical case against animal experimentation, fine, but drop the emotive nonsense and the pretense that you're oh-so-terribly-outraged by something that goes on across this country on a daily basis.
It's bloody difficult to get to experiment on animals, particularly larger ones, in this country. It requires a rigorous application to the Home Office explaining precisely how and why they will be used, and justifying any numbers.
The obvious objective is scientific research, with numerous benefits. Despite the crowing from the animal rights lobby, they're nothing more than a fringe group of fruitbats and bores. If you want to make a philosophical case against animal experimentation, fine, but drop the emotive nonsense and the pretense that you're oh-so-terribly-outraged by something that goes on across this country on a daily basis.
Fact of the matter is, animals can't fight back. I'm not particularly for animal testing and personally I believe that prisoners with life sentences should be subjected to being experimented on but in the end, animal testing could eventually be advantageous to animals. Veterinary medicine is obviously closely linked to human medicine and advances to human medicine will lead to advances in veterinry medicine and vice versa.
Original post by L i b
Oh for the love of ****.
It's bloody difficult to get to experiment on animals, particularly larger ones, in this country. It requires a rigorous application to the Home Office explaining precisely how and why they will be used, and justifying any numbers.
It's bloody difficult to get to experiment on animals, particularly larger ones, in this country. It requires a rigorous application to the Home Office explaining precisely how and why they will be used, and justifying any numbers.
This.
It's not as if people are just going to be drowning puppies in the lab sink for giggles.
Anti-animal testing members are more than welcome to go ahead and reject the the medical advances that have come from animal testing, but I doubt any do.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by datpiff
Those poor beagles. This makes me ashamed to be British.
Those poor beagles. This makes me ashamed to be British.Why? You're ashamed that a few dogs are being sacrificed for potential advances in medicine? It's not as if they're eating them or killing them for fun.
Original post by Fango_Jett
This.
It's not as if people are just going to be drowning puppies in the lab sink for giggles.
Anti-animal testing members are more than welcome to go ahead and reject the the medical advances that have come from animal testing, but I doubt any do.
It's not as if people are just going to be drowning puppies in the lab sink for giggles.
Anti-animal testing members are more than welcome to go ahead and reject the the medical advances that have come from animal testing, but I doubt any do.
Surely the government should be investing in the use of human stem cells for testing instead. Countless products pass the animal stage then fail the human one due to humans and animals being ultimately physiologically diffferent. Dont you agree thay it would be a quicker, ultimately cheaper and more ethical way to make advances in science
Original post by simbasdragon
Surely the government should be investing in the use of human stem cells for testing instead. Countless products pass the animal stage then fail the human one due to humans and animals being ultimately physiologically diffferent. Dont you agree thay it would be a quicker, ultimately cheaper and more ethical way to make advances in science
Alternatives to vivisections are not going to replace them entirely by any stretch. They may limit the need for vivisection, but nothing right now is ever going to replace testing on a full, live organism. Animal rights activists have been bleating on about computer simulations and chip organs for years, but the reality is that they are nowhere near developed or advanced enough to replace vivisection.
Original post by simbasdragon
Surely the government should be investing in the use of human stem cells for testing instead. Countless products pass the animal stage then fail the human one due to humans and animals being ultimately physiologically diffferent. Dont you agree thay it would be a quicker, ultimately cheaper and more ethical way to make advances in science
It may be more ethical, but it certainly isn't going to be quicker given the amount of research still needed to bring stem cell technology up to the point where it can effectively replace animal testing. I highly doubt it would currently be cheaper either.
In an ideal world we would be able to produce viable human tissues for all of our scientific research, but we don't live in an ideal world. Right now animal testing is the best method we have of conducting this research, the important thing is to ensure it is being done responsibly until we reach a point where we can phase it out.
Original post by DiddyDec
That is the cost of progress.
Not necessarily. We would actually make more progress when it comes to developing medicine for humans if we experimented on humans. More than 90% of drugs tested on nonhuman animals fail when administered to humans; if we were to experiment on humans (say, murderers), we would be able to make more medical progress, as humans have essentially identical biochemical pathways. Drugs that are safe and appear to be effective in humans are extremely likely to be safe and effective in other humans. Drugs that are safe in nonhuman animals may be unsafe in humans; conversely, drugs that are unsafe in nonhuman animals may actually be safe in humans.
In general, as even The Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science admits: “It is impossible to give reliable general rules for the validity of extrapolation from one species to another. [This] can often only be verified after the first trials in the target species [humans]. Extrapolation from animal models... will always remain a matter of hindsight.”
Moreover, the academic Andrew Knight, in his book The Costs and Benefits of Animal Experiments, found that only 2 out of 20 systematic reviews of animal experimentation concluded that animal models were either significantly useful in contributing to the development of human clinical interventions, or substantially consistent with clinical outcomes. Furthermore, one of these conclusions was contentious. Seven additional reviews also failed to demonstrate reliable predictivity of human toxicities such as carcinogenicity and teratogenicity, and no reviews demonstrated contrary results. Results in animal models were frequently equivocal or inconsistent with human outcomes.
If we can justify experimenting on nonhuman animals on the basis that it leads to a greater good, there's no reason why we cannot justify experimenting on humans on the basis that it leads to an even greater good.
Original post by Fango_Jett
So? I don't see the problem here. Mice and Chimpanzees are used in testing all the time (though chimps not in the UK I think). Why should dogs be any different? It's the price of progress.
Nothing more irritating than seeing these some of the pseudo animal rights activists who get out the pitchforks when it suits them, and go home and use cosmetics tested on monkeys and drugs tested on both mice and primates. Testing on dogs has been critical in getting medical advances out to the public. ECG, Insulin, and certain treatments for prostate cancers are the ones that spring to mind. You can't seriously rail against this and then go ahead and use them when it conveniences you.
Nothing more irritating than seeing these some of the pseudo animal rights activists who get out the pitchforks when it suits them, and go home and use cosmetics tested on monkeys and drugs tested on both mice and primates. Testing on dogs has been critical in getting medical advances out to the public. ECG, Insulin, and certain treatments for prostate cancers are the ones that spring to mind. You can't seriously rail against this and then go ahead and use them when it conveniences you.
For most animal welfare activists, it's not about the species of animal. Most of those who are protesting against this likely oppose experimenting on mice and chimpanzees too.
And, testing cosmetics products on nonhuman animals has been banned for quite a while now, thanks to animal welfare activists, and even before the ban was introduced, there were plenty of alternative cosmetics products which many animal welfare activists used.
These medical advances are being offered for free, so there's no point in denying the use of these treatments. Furthermore, as explained above, testing on humans would actually lead to greater medical advances.
Original post by APlantinga
Why is everyone such mewling idiots?
Cry for the slugs you pick from their own home and crush to death so your precious flowers stay pretty or gtfo
Cry for the slugs you pick from their own home and crush to death so your precious flowers stay pretty or gtfo
You've not offered a logical, coherent argument against the position that nonhuman animals should not be used in experiments.
Original post by L i b
Oh for the love of ****.
It's bloody difficult to get to experiment on animals, particularly larger ones, in this country. It requires a rigorous application to the Home Office explaining precisely how and why they will be used, and justifying any numbers.
The obvious objective is scientific research, with numerous benefits. Despite the crowing from the animal rights lobby, they're nothing more than a fringe group of fruitbats and bores. If you want to make a philosophical case against animal experimentation, fine, but drop the emotive nonsense and the pretense that you're oh-so-terribly-outraged by something that goes on across this country on a daily basis.
It's bloody difficult to get to experiment on animals, particularly larger ones, in this country. It requires a rigorous application to the Home Office explaining precisely how and why they will be used, and justifying any numbers.
The obvious objective is scientific research, with numerous benefits. Despite the crowing from the animal rights lobby, they're nothing more than a fringe group of fruitbats and bores. If you want to make a philosophical case against animal experimentation, fine, but drop the emotive nonsense and the pretense that you're oh-so-terribly-outraged by something that goes on across this country on a daily basis.
There's a sound philosophical case against animal experimentation, and, due to this case, many people are genuinely outraged by this. The fact that it happens on a daily basis is irrelevant to whether people should be outraged or not.
As explained above, experimenting on humans, for instance prisoners, would lead to more of the benefits you speak of.
You seem to be getting highly emotional about other people's views.
Original post by Fango_Jett
This.
It's not as if people are just going to be drowning puppies in the lab sink for giggles.
Anti-animal testing members are more than welcome to go ahead and reject the the medical advances that have come from animal testing, but I doubt any do.
It's not as if people are just going to be drowning puppies in the lab sink for giggles.
Anti-animal testing members are more than welcome to go ahead and reject the the medical advances that have come from animal testing, but I doubt any do.
Again, if the medical advances are being offered for free, there's no point in rejecting them.
Original post by Fango_Jett
Alternatives to vivisections are not going to replace them entirely by any stretch. They may limit the need for vivisection, but nothing right now is ever going to replace testing on a full, live organism. Animal rights activists have been bleating on about computer simulations and chip organs for years, but the reality is that they are nowhere near developed or advanced enough to replace vivisection.
Nothing right now is ever going to replace testing on a full, live organism, yes, which is why we should be experimenting on humans instead of nonhuman animals in order to gain further medical advances, as explained above.
We also shouldn't downplay the viability of using alternative methods in many areas of research, nowadays.
Animal testing is still the best method for certain forms of research, yes. Specifically, testing on human animals would lead to less suffering in the world and a greater rate of medical progress than testing on nonhuman animals.
We also shouldn't downplay the viability of using alternative methods in many areas of research, nowadays.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by viddy9
There's a sound philosophical case against animal experimentation, and, due to this case, many people are genuinely outraged by this. The fact that it happens on a daily basis is irrelevant to whether people should be outraged or not.
As explained above, experimenting on humans, for instance prisoners, would lead to more of the benefits you speak of.
You seem to be getting highly emotional about other people's views.
As explained above, experimenting on humans, for instance prisoners, would lead to more of the benefits you speak of.
You seem to be getting highly emotional about other people's views.
No, I'm calling other people stupid. That's not an emotion, it's simply a statement of opinion: a great many people are ****ing idiots. I'm not saying that because they pursue stupid causes, but because they think an argument can be won by running around flailing one's arms about.
You do not build a sound philosophical case around outrage, nor do you get any political Brownie-points from suggesting that the utterly ordinary is somehow exceptional. We (and by that, I mean the sensible majority) know you exist, and we think you're a charming but ultimately barmy fringe.
If you want to make a case, try reason rather than emotion. Unfortunately you've managed to entirely undermine that in your post by comparing human beings to dogs and expecting us to somehow overlook the absurdity. It's almost like you're assuming that the thought has not occurred to people that we treat animals differently from people and that this is somehow a great debating point - it isn't, and in general people don't like being patronised by those who they think are borderline mad.
Strangely enough, if taken as advice this post might actually be helpful to your cause.
Original post by viddy9
x
x
I wasn't downplaying the potential of alternative testing. Alternative testing are good accompaniments to animal testing, but it will never replace it entirely. At the most, they limit the animals we have to sacrifice. Computer Simulations and Chip organs only go so far, and they are hardly developed enough to even come close to replacing them. The reality is that until they get advanced further (involving large amounts of expensive research that will take years to get funding) it simply isn't enough.
What does the price of the medicine have to do with it? It's incredibly hypocritical to use medicine that has been as a result of testing on dogs, but then go on to rail against the people who developed it.
The only reason this is even gaining traction is because they are using dogs instead of say rats. Most of the pseudo welfare activists out there wouldn't blink an eye if it were a rat being killed. But if it's a cute puppy? Better bring out the pitchfork.
Oh no don't get me wrong, I completely support involuntary human testing on criminals in death row (include harvesting organs from them).
(edited 8 years ago)
Ok, lets clear a few things up.
1. This is not new, beagles have been used in pharmaceutical research for decades, infact the first studies which showed that smoking was harmful were done in beagles.
2. The Chimpanzee is a protected species and is not used in pharmaceutical testing anywhere. Primates used are oftern maccaques.
3.Primates are tested on but the numbers are very small in comparison to rats and mice.
4.scientists are people like everyone else, they arnt sadistic monsters that live in dungeons. Im betting im one of very few people here to have visited beagles in a lab, they are well looked after. They have loads of room to play and tunnels and slides to play on, monkeys have swings and ropes.
5.non animal (in vitro and in silico) methods are improving all the time but are not even close to being as reliable as animal tests.
6. Yes a large quantity of drugs that pass preclinical testing (in animals) fail in the clinic, this does not mean preclinical testing isnt removing toxic drugs from the pipeline.
It all boils down to. Do you want new drugs to treat nasty diseases l, Yes? Some beagles
are going to be tested on.
1. This is not new, beagles have been used in pharmaceutical research for decades, infact the first studies which showed that smoking was harmful were done in beagles.
2. The Chimpanzee is a protected species and is not used in pharmaceutical testing anywhere. Primates used are oftern maccaques.
3.Primates are tested on but the numbers are very small in comparison to rats and mice.
4.scientists are people like everyone else, they arnt sadistic monsters that live in dungeons. Im betting im one of very few people here to have visited beagles in a lab, they are well looked after. They have loads of room to play and tunnels and slides to play on, monkeys have swings and ropes.
5.non animal (in vitro and in silico) methods are improving all the time but are not even close to being as reliable as animal tests.
6. Yes a large quantity of drugs that pass preclinical testing (in animals) fail in the clinic, this does not mean preclinical testing isnt removing toxic drugs from the pipeline.
It all boils down to. Do you want new drugs to treat nasty diseases l, Yes? Some beagles
are going to be tested on.
Original post by L i b
No, I'm calling other people stupid. That's not an emotion, it's simply a statement of opinion: a great many people are ****ing idiots. I'm not saying that because they pursue stupid causes, but because they think an argument can be won by running around flailing one's arms about.
The 'tone' of your post suggested that you are emotional about this issue.
Original post by L i b
You do not build a sound philosophical case around outrage, nor do you get any political Brownie-points from suggesting that the utterly ordinary is somehow exceptional. We (and by that, I mean the sensible majority) know you exist, and we think you're a charming but ultimately barmy fringe. If you want to make a case, try reason rather than emotion. Unfortunately you've managed to entirely undermine that in your post by comparing human beings to dogs and expecting us to somehow overlook the absurdity. It's almost like you're assuming that the thought has not occurred to people that we treat animals differently from people and that this is somehow a great debating point - it isn't, and in general people don't like being patronised by those who they think are borderline mad.
The philosophical case is not built around outrage; the outrage occurs as a result of the philosophical case. When responding to an action which people deem to be immoral, they will respond with outrage: they aren't going to recite the philosophical case against the action on every occasion.
When ISIL behead someone, people aren't going to recite the philosophical case against beheading people - they're going to respond with outrage.
Unfortunately, you're the one being unreasonable - you've not provided any justification for calling the comparison of human beings to dogs "absurd". Both would suffer in experiments, but there's no logical justification for putting the interests of humans above the interests of other animals - that's speciesism and not a single philosopher has been able to justify it.
So, please, tell me: why should we put the interests of humans above the interests of nonhuman animals?
Of course the thought has occurred to people that we treat nonhuman animals different from human animals, but you pointing this out is utterly irrelevant to whether they ought to. You're making the common mistake of confusing is with ought.
The majority of people may well support experimentation on nonhuman animals as long as the 3 Rs are implemented, but, again, that's to be expected: people will put the interests of their own species above the interests of other species, in general. They haven't ever been able to justify it, however, and that's what I'm asking you to do.
Original post by L i b
Strangely enough, if taken as advice this post might actually be helpful to your cause.
Seeing as my cause is an anti-speciesist one, accepting people's irrationality when it comes to speciesism isn't exactly going to be helpful. Those who were pro-slavery would have said the same thing about abolitionists - "of course blacks are being treated differently to whites!".
This case is different, though, in the sense that experimenting on humans will actually lead to more of the desire outcomes which people use to justify experimentation on nonhuman animals.
Original post by Fango_Jett
What does the price of the medicine have to do with it? It's incredibly hypocritical to use medicine that has been as a result of testing on dogs, but then go on to rail against the people who developed it.
Given that using the medicine will not affect whether similar products are developed in the future, there's no reason for me not to use the medicine, as a utilitarian.
Original post by Fango_Jett
The only reason this is even gaining traction is because they are using dogs instead of say rats. Most of the pseudo welfare activists out there wouldn't blink an eye if it were a rat being killed. But if it's a cute puppy? Better bring out the pitchfork.
The majority of people who oppose this will oppose animal experimentation in general. When a new nonhuman animal testing facility is opened, those who oppose animal experimentation will generally protest.
Original post by Fango_Jett
Oh no don't get me wrong, I completely support involuntary human testing on criminals in death row (include harvesting organs from them).
I support human testing on murderers around the world, and I think that this should replace animal experimentation as far as possible. There are other possibilities for human testing as well.
You talk of alternatives in your first paragraph, but neglect to mention human testing until your last. Human testing should replace nonhuman animal testing as far as possible, up to and including replacing it completely, along with other alternatives.
Original post by earthworm
It all boils down to. Do you want new drugs to treat nasty diseases l, Yes? Some beagles
are going to be tested on.
are going to be tested on.
Once again, the same logic can and should be applied to humans. I'll repeat:
We would actually make more progress when it comes to developing medicine for humans if we experimented on humans. More than 90% of drugs tested on nonhuman animals fail when administered to humans; if we were to experiment on humans (say, murderers), we would be able to make more medical progress, as humans have essentially identical biochemical pathways. Drugs that are safe and appear to be effective in humans are extremely likely to be safe and effective in other humans. Drugs that are safe in nonhuman animals may be unsafe in humans; conversely, drugs that are unsafe in nonhuman animals may actually be safe in humans.
In general, as even The Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science admits: “It is impossible to give reliable general rules for the validity of extrapolation from one species to another. [This] can often only be verified after the first trials in the target species [humans]. Extrapolation from animal models... will always remain a matter of hindsight.”
Moreover, the academic Andrew Knight, in his book The Costs and Benefits of Animal Experiments, found that only 2 out of 20 systematic reviews of animal experimentation concluded that animal models were either significantly useful in contributing to the development of human clinical interventions, or substantially consistent with clinical outcomes. Furthermore, one of these conclusions was contentious. Seven additional reviews also failed to demonstrate reliable predictivity of human toxicities such as carcinogenicity and teratogenicity, and no reviews demonstrated contrary results. Results in animal models were frequently equivocal or inconsistent with human outcomes.
If we can justify experimenting on nonhuman animals on the basis that it leads to a greater good, there's no reason why we cannot justify experimenting on humans on the basis that it leads to an even greater good, unless you can justify applying different moral principles to nonhuman animals than to humans.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by viddy9
I support human testing on murderers around the world, and I think that this should replace animal experimentation as far as possible. There are other possibilities for human testing as well.
You talk of alternatives in your first paragraph, but neglect to mention human testing until your last. Human testing should replace nonhuman animal testing as far as possible, up to and including replacing it completely, along with other alternatives.
I support human testing on murderers around the world, and I think that this should replace animal experimentation as far as possible. There are other possibilities for human testing as well.
You talk of alternatives in your first paragraph, but neglect to mention human testing until your last. Human testing should replace nonhuman animal testing as far as possible, up to and including replacing it completely, along with other alternatives.
Will never happen in the west because of Human Rights issues, and it's not worth anyone's time discussing it in detail frankly.
Original post by Fango_Jett
Will never happen in the west because of Human Rights issues, and it's not worth anyone's time discussing it in detail frankly.
The debate is still, philosophically, important. We cannot justify experimenting on nonhuman animals whilst failing to experiment on humans, and your refusal to discuss this suggests that you acknowledge this.
Animal experimentation cannot be justified, and it's not the "price of pgoress", as you claimed in an earlier post, because we could, if we were logical beings, experiment on humans to gain even further progress in medicine.
The petty insults, not by you, directed at those who oppose animal experimentation for philosophically sound reasons are illogical. Very well, say that my argument is impractical, but that's a different issue to whether it is a logically sound argument or not.
Those who support animal experimentation have never refuted the philosophical argument against it.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Does anyone have a permanent job for a 14 year old
- Do you guys have any cool pets?
- Name an animal that begins with the last letter of the previous animal
- Relationship advice
- have you ever been hurt or chased by an animal?
- Whats your favourite pet?
- Sausage Dogs: yay or nay?
- Favourite Videogames Of All Time - Only remove 4 and add 4 from the last poster.
- which is better? Dogs or cats
- Favourite anime of all time - remove 4 and add 4 from the last poster
- What's the strangest animal to have as a pet?
- Assistance Dog at Uni
- jobs for 14-15 year olds
- Should I get a cat or dog first? | Julio Herrera
- Post your biggest secret anonymously
- My Boyfriends dog scares me and has bit me
- Why he never like my post but be all over someone else's?
- When an unleashed dog charges at your leashed dog
- Neighbors dog keeps eating my footballs
- My bf is very complicated recently...
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
