supersal1 
|
Afterthought - does anyone know why ADI decided to carry out undercover filming on that particular elephant?
Also, I thought the comments about the Roberts looking cruel were a wee bit judgmental. Judge the deed by all means, but not what someone looks like. They are an elderly couple who've just undergone a court case with one of them being found guilty. Mrs Roberts was found not guilty as she didn't own Annie. In addition, they've had death threats against them and their family, including their grandchildren. They look pretty much as I'd expect them to in the circumstances.
Reply #21. Nov 25 12, 9:23 AM
|
TheRambler
|
I'm not sure what some of you are on about but the thread was about an elephant that was sickenly abused and I'm not interested if this Chav person is annoyed about their vegetarian ways being criticised. Why doesn't anyone take it seriously that yet another animal has been beaten in a circus that has probably abused animals for 50 odd years to make them perform in the ring??? I think I'll just stick to doing the quizzes on FT as the chat board is weird.
Reply #22. Nov 25 12, 10:01 AM
|
| Chavs
|
I apologise for ruffling feathers.
I didn't realise anyone was criticising my vegetarian ways. I'm not that pushed if anyone is really. There's not much to criticise about not eating meat, is there??
I thought they were taking umbrage that I had introduced the topic, partly because (as the other thread discusses) there's an awkward situation when it comes to talking about animals and how humans treat them, but also because they felt I was being a judgmental troll. And should therefore be spoken to sternly.
Even then I haven't taken offence!
I am just reading that other thread. Lots of strong opinions! But an interesting question.
Reply #23. Nov 25 12, 10:15 AM
|
| lesley153
|
Sally, I think that was me. I just meant they struck me as looking a bit unsavoury - it wasn't a comment on their perceived kindness or lack of. I didn't know about the death threats. That's completely unjustified and unacceptable.
The thread you linked us to starts with me having a rant about my favourite evangelist. Happy memories. :)
Reply #24. Nov 25 12, 10:17 AM
|
| Chavs
|
((does anyone know why ADI decided to carry out undercover filming on that particular elephant?))
Another interesting question.
I don't know the answer but a quick google brings up a PETA site where PETA says it offered Mr Roberts a chance to visit an elephant sanctuary several years ago with the hope that he would choose to re-home Annie. So I suppose animal activists have been following this elephant's case for a long time.
As for the death threats, they are completely out of order, I think. Do you remember that case a few years ago where animal activists dug up the grave of a woman whose family were involved in medical testing on animals? I respect the work that some activism has done, and am grateful for it, but it doesn't need to get so nasty.
Reply #25. Nov 25 12, 10:22 AM
|
| lesley153
|
Yes, I remember the grave being dug up. When activists do that sort of thing, that's when you know they've completely lost the plot. If you asked them why they were protesting, half of them probably wouldn't have a clue how to explain.
Reply #26. Nov 25 12, 10:34 AM
|
| Chavs
|
Probably it's just as Sister Seagull said: those who use cruelty against animals must feel inadequate somehow. Maybe those who devote their time to levying death threats etc also feel inadequate.
Is this a bad time to confess that a long time ago I realised that the battle against animals in circuses was winning, and I had been given free tickets to a visitng Italian circus that still used elephants, so I chose to go because I reckoned it would be my only chance to see such a spectacle (for all its good and bad points). The circus was amazing, it had the best clowns I'd ever seen, and the performers were clearly masters of their craft. It was jaw-dropping to see elephants balancing on balls, straight out of the Dumbo film. I'm not sorry I went, it was an experience. I'm relived that those days are ending though. The circus didn't return. Following a lot of public debate about the ethics of it, the audience for it was deemed to have dwindled, I think.
The circus charged a quid or so to visit "backstage" where you could see the animals in their living quarters. They didn't appear to be unhappy or poorly treated - and I have a circus friend who maintains there are many good owners out there, they are not all abusers by far - but it's impossible to believe they were actually happy. Why would any elephant be content to live in captivity, even without abuse?
Reply #27. Nov 25 12, 10:51 AM
|
TheRambler
|
There's a lot of you on this site that are on first name terms and your like a clique. You take great joy in moving away from the subject and it is like an in joke between you. I won't ever think that you will take any threads about the abuse of animals seriously again, as you really don't seem to give a hoot about anything apart from your smart comments.
Reply #28. Nov 25 12, 2:05 PM
|
| Chavs
|
Woah! I have clearly put my foot in it somewhere but I assure you that it was comment made in good faith, not meant to steer anything anywhere, just a genuine reaction to the posts preceeding.
I think there has been a misunderstanding. Let's start again.
I read in the Guardian that a keeper at Longleat testified in defence of the Roberts, saying Mr Roberts clearly cared for Anne, and that the Roberts visit her, and that for an elephant of her age she was in good health.
Reply #29. Nov 25 12, 5:34 PM
|
Mommakat
|
There is an old saying that is very true, there are only three things you can positively believe is true in the newspapers, 1: The Name of the Paper, 2: the date and 3: the page numbers. All else is suspect and hearsay.
Reply #30. Nov 25 12, 6:09 PM
|
Mommakat
|
The fact that members address each other by name displays a camaraderie that exists and is indicative of good relationships between members, anyone who can't understand this and finds it not their liking would be better off directing their activities elsewhere.
Reply #31. Nov 25 12, 6:17 PM
|
| lesley153
|
Diane, isn't that what people do when they're chatting? People who get on (oh and people who don't as well) don't stay sternly on topic throughout the conversation, and will also inject humour. It doesn't mean that they have no respect for the debate.
Reply #32. Nov 25 12, 7:01 PM
|
| lesley153
|
Meg, I'm not even sure some of the papers know what day it is.
Reply #33. Nov 25 12, 7:02 PM
|
Mommakat
|
Well you are probably right there Lesley.
Reply #34. Nov 25 12, 7:09 PM
|
TheRambler
|
Yeah you're all right, I felt that you were not taking it seriously and I probably take things too seriously about animals. I'm a bit of an activist but not OTT like some of them. My apologies.
Reply #35. Nov 26 12, 5:31 AM
|
supersal1
|
Rambler, sorry if anything I said upset you. I just felt that perhaps Chavs had a good point that might best be discussed on another thread, which is why I posted the link.
Of course any sort of animal cruelty is abhorrent, but if we all came on and said 'oh yes, that's shocking' it wouldn't be much of a chat.
Reply #36. Nov 26 12, 5:58 AM
|
|
36 replies. On page 2 of
2 page(s).
1
2
|
Legal / Conditions of Use
|
Play Now! 
: 