Anne the ex Circus Elephant.

While I fully agree with Anne the elephant being re homed at Longleat which in my opinion was long overdue I see that animal welfare groups were still protesting outside Bobby Robert's Super Circus last week at Leigh, If I personally was so concerned about equine welfare I think spending my time at Liverpool on Saturday would have been more worthwhile as I understand two horses were killed there whilst"in performance". I certainly think the days of elephants and big cats in a circus are now over, however I do not have a problem with horses, dogs or budgies appearing in the sawdust ring providing they are kept in good conditions. I have also noticed that Bobby Robert's Super Circus website does not appear to have a venue this week.
 
Warning to posters on this thread

Please be advised that owing to the upcoming trial, the Moderators will remove anything posted here that might be viewed as unsuitable comment under the circumstances. Thanks for your co-operation.
 
mazfc said:
I'm not commenting on the court case either way I just want to say to the above comment - ' seriously??'
Click to expand...

I have heard the allegation mentioned somewhere on here I believe, whether it is true or not I have no idea so I'm not making it myself, just saying either way it isn't fair on Bobby or Moira - sorry if it was misinterpreted :)

Just to add, this is where I'm referring to (unless I've misunderstood what is being said, it is part of a quote posted in the other thread [circus memories UK] that suggests it is either staged or just exaggerated -again, apologies if I have it wrong).

The groom responsible for the incident had been in our employment since April 2010, working under Bobby's supervision and not giving us any cause for concern. The film sequence shows him striking the elephant with, what is, a plastic pitchfork but the sound to the film appears to have been added subsequently and exaggerates the force being used and the impact of the strike. There are two worrying aspects to the film footage. The first is that it shows Anne behaving quite naturally and placidly, standing in her normal position and, having watched the film repeatedly, there are no apparent reasons for him to suddenly strike her. The second concerns the hoodie, which the film shows to be pulled over his face and later the cap pulled down over his head. None of the Roberts' family can recall this man ever having worn a hoodie or a cap during the whole time he worked for us and we can't understand why he should need to wear them on the days when he committed such unacceptable and barbaric actions
Click to expand...
 
All I am going to say is that a hell lot of people do terrible things to animals they love. And leaving an elephant unsupervised under the "care" of an unqualified cheap-cheap worker who is in no way trained to handle an elephant doesn`t really qualify as "loving care".
 
Very interesting summing up, I think the judge got it right, and why if they care -as they are telling people they do- did ADI Wait 8 weeks to do something about it?
 
zoogiraffe said:
As somebody that has meet the Roberts over a number of years,and spoken with them on many occassions,I feel very sorry that they now have to go through this,after all they cared for Anne more than some people do about their own kids.:(
Click to expand...

I totally agree. The Roberts are only guilty of being unaware of the cruelty going on behind their backs, carried out by the very person that should be the one in court , not the Roberts.The perpetrator has got away with it and left the Roberts to carry the can. Has twycross Zoo been prosecuted because of the actions of three keepers who ill-treated their Elephants ? Well NO of course not , so why should the Roberts??
The owners of these establishments cannot be held accountable for the actions of others , which there are totally unaware of!! It is a different story if they do know it is going on but still do nothing.
 
Reading the report though, the actions of the groom he didn't know about only account for 1 part of the charges + personally reading only what the judge says in the report I do think that as he admits not stepping in over her being constantly chained that he did take part in knowingly mistreating her. I see your point re twycross but we don't know exactly what's happening there or what charges may be brought yet do we? (that's a genuine Q not sarcasm) If so it might be too soon to compare.
 
Tunanta said:
Reading the report though, the actions of the groom he didn't know about only account for 1 part of the charges + personally reading only what the judge says in the report I do think that as he admits not stepping in over her being constantly chained that he did take part in knowingly mistreating her. I see your point re twycross but we don't know exactly what's happening there or what charges may be brought yet do we? (that's a genuine Q not sarcasm) If so it might be too soon to compare.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree to a point, although leg chains in themselves can be a useful animal management tool in elephant husbandry when used correctly, not for constant use of course, but as and when required in that kind of situation. That said I am not a great fan of them myself.
But I can`t see how Bobby would knowingly let this mistreatment take place , Annie was his pride and joy. But perhaps he did put too much trust in the groom and left him to get on with it, circus life is hard and hectic, so I can see that it is easy to overlook things by mistake. You shouldn`t really need to watch over your animal staff in theory, you presume they are doing their job correctly.



I think the judges comments and ruling was a fair decision.
 
Tunanta said:
I see your point re twycross but we don't know exactly what's happening there or what charges may be brought yet do we? (that's a genuine Q not sarcasm) If so it might be too soon to compare.
Click to expand...

From what I'm hearing from a varity of sources no charges will be,brought as no case can be found against the 3 keepers!
 
It must be a real worry to own animals in England.

You could own a dog, for example, which you keep tethered on your property but take for regular walks.

You need to go away somewhere so you pay someone to look after the dog, take it for walks and socialise with it in your absence.

That person does not take the animal for regular walks and treats it abominably in your absence.

You end up convicted and your life and your business are ruined.

The offender gets off scot free.

Is this what you Brits call justice?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top