The difference is that elephants can be very dangerous and can`t be cared for nor handled by just anyone. If you hire someone who has no experience and no training to care for an elephant, you can`t be surprised that the elephant is left in chains 24/7. In this situation the owner is actuallly the one who is mainly responsible and not the poor bloke who is terrified and scared and has no idea how to safely do what he is asked.
Anne the ex Circus Elephant.
- Thread starter Zambar
- Start date
zoogiraffe
Well-Known Member
The more I here about this the,more I think the man that disappeared was a plant by the ADL,and their delay in reporting this was so that they could get their man safely out of the way before,they dropped the hammer on the un-suspecting Robert's.
Gigit
Well-Known Member
If that's the case then I hope it's the keepers who bring charges.
Also, if this is the case, I hope the keepers will be offered their jobs back. Also, if this is the case, all this has done is bring the zoo nothing but very bad publicity, completely unnecessary.
If he was a plant, then he must have been planted there for a long time, as he was definitely working on the show during the 2010 season, I think it was established at the court case that he was not planted by A.D.I., if he had been, even"better"if you can call it that, video evidence could have been obtained, i.e. Anne being filmed from the front. The reason I think A.D.I. delayed releasing this film until March was for it to coincide with the opening of Roberts tenting season at Knutsford, and from this ground, virtually for the next two full tenting seasons they certainly were punished financially, as well as from animal rights demonstrators, I do not honestly know how they kept going, as the judge stated to Mr. Roberts, you have been punished enough.
ps i personaly think the groom was bribed . The camera used had to have to be checked and batteries changed regarly . So someone from ADI was in the area im sure they befriended the groom to get the footage . The fact that he dissapeared just before the footage was released makes this even more likely . he was ticked ioff .PS this is not the first and wont be the last time ADI have used these tactics
I would also like to add that it is actually illegal to install CCTV [or any recording/photographic devices] when they are filming an area of land that does not belong to you. Also, I believe there must be signs explicitly stating that CCTV is in operation?
If these laws are true, then why has nobody bothered to punish ADL for [in effect] breaking the law?
If these laws are true, then why has nobody bothered to punish ADL for [in effect] breaking the law?
Last edited:
With all due respect Yassa, the judge didn't make a species specific judgement. The way I read his remarks he would make the same judgement in the scenario that I outlined above.
This groom had been working there for 3 years - hardly a terrified bloke with no experience.
Although the judge used the groom's length of service as the reason for him drawing the conclusion that the groom wasn't an ADI plant, I feel that he overlooked the probability of ADI befriending an existing employee and influencing him to do their bidding.
Certainly the camera would have needed servicing over that length of time - someone on the inside would need to do that or facilitate someone from the outside to do it.
Also, the disappearance of an employee of 3 year's service just before the news broke is, to me, much more than a co-incidence.
The matter of the groom wearing a hoodie during the filming but never at other times also needed to be given more scrutiny.
A sad outcome albeit with wonderful sentencing remarks from the judge.
It's called "the means justifies the ends" and gets overlooked in the courts**. Let's not forget something wrong did happen here and ADI did bring it to attention. I agree they should not have sat on it though (for whatever reason, I'd imagine tactical per Tarzan's post) as it's immoral letting an animal suffer when you have information to prevent it (especially when your groups stated aim is to "stop animal cruelty").
**which I think is reasonable, I wouldn't like a society where wrongdoers are protected from getting caught because some intrepid investigator or whistle blower got prosecuted for gathering evidence against them, or where only the police get to record people and put their side of the story forward (imagine the Ian Tomlinson incident if that were the case). It's not that I don't think ADI are largely self-serving deluded idiots (I do) more that it's important to be pragmatic and think of the bigger picture on these issues. If we become blinkered, reactionary and "one note" on these matters and throw in everything to support our argument we become, in our actions, almost as bad as them. Leave the dogmatism to them.
Last edited: