Claim 00f09bb3Checked 21 Jul 2026
TrueOn the truth scale
“Some basic animal-protection rules would prohibit the conduct under discussion.”
Reasoning & Evidence21 Jul 2026
At the time of the interview (2 December 2011), the Animal Welfare Act 2006 was the principal animal-welfare legislation in England and Wales. Section 4 of that Act creates an offence where a person's act causes a "protected animal" to suffer, the person knew or ought to have known that suffering would result, and the suffering is "unnecessary." The Act defines "protected animal" broadly to include any vertebrate commonly domesticated in the British Islands — a goat would certainly qualify.
Throwing a live goat off a high tower would plainly cause physical suffering (injury or death from the fall). Under Section 4(3), the court considers whether the suffering could reasonably have been avoided, whether it was for a legitimate purpose (e.g., benefiting the animal, protecting a person/property), and whether the conduct was that of a "reasonably competent and humane person." There is no plausible legitimate purpose for throwing a live goat off a tower, so such suffering would be deemed "unnecessary" and the act would be an offence under the Act.
This is further corroborated by real-world prosecutions: a man was prosecuted and banned from keeping animals for throwing a dog over a gate (BBC, 2025), demonstrating that throwing animals is treated as an offence under the Animal Welfare Act.
The claim is therefore accurate: basic UK animal-protection rules — specifically the Animal Welfare Act 2006 — would prohibit the conduct described.
Sources:
- Animal Welfare Act 2006, Section 4 (Unnecessary suffering), legislation.gov.uk: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/section/4/enacted
- Animal Welfare Act 2006 (full text), legislation.gov.uk: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45
- Animal Welfare Act 2006, Explanatory Notes, legislation.gov.uk: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/section/4/notes
- Animal welfare guidance, GOV.UK: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/animal-welfare
- Offences Involving Domestic and Captive Animals, Crown Prosecution Service: https://cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-involving-domestic-and-captive-animals
- "Animal ban for man filmed throwing dog over gate," BBC News: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9d24qde4x6o
- Nigel Farage interview, High Profiles: https://highprofiles.info/interview/nigel-farage/
From article
To some extent. To some extent. Our culture and our upbringing do dictate what we find acceptable within the rules of society. But no, I mean, look, we have some basic animal-protection rules that wouldn’t let you do it. Do I think those rules are unnecessary and should be scrapped? I can’t get drawn down that route!
It’s difficult. I mean, listen, there are extreme libertarians who argue that all forms of pornography are acceptable, or – yeah, there are some very extreme positions out there. I don’t support those, but I do think that in this country government is impinging, bit by bit, upon our freedoms – and I think that the smoking ban and the hunting ban are two very good examples. I don’t hunt foxes, but if other people want to, that doesn’t actually impinge on my personal freedom.
Sources opened