South Lakes Wild Animal Park South Lakes discussion thread
- Thread starter Nisha
- Start date
AND Sooty.... To categorize my own opinion to which im entitled to as "bonkers" is not polite in my opinion and if I were to give an opinion on someone else's written piece I would do it nicely there are ways to say exactly the same thing but in different words ... I will tell you my motto though. if you cant say something nice.... DON'T say nothing at all 
I am relatively new to the topics and I am learning every day...
I am relatively new to the topics and I am learning every day...Also, Please remember folks, it was David Gill who said that he designed the tiger enclosure and house and built every animal house etc himself, its all there in black and white, it is even there on the zoos website page. "As previously reported, park owner and founder Mr Gill, who designed the tiger house, told the inquest jury how he jumped out of a digger 80 yards away and ran towards a fence on the side of the enclosure where he saw the tiger sitting over Miss McClay." and South Lakes Wild Animal Park is a private zoo created, designed, owned and developed by David Gill. At the time of the construction back in 1993/4, he was an animal nutritionist with no connections to zoo’s, but a desire to see education and conservation brought into the public awareness by the reality of a close, wild experience, an experience for all to react to assist worldwide conservation issues. The then 32-year-old father of two, built the park with his own hands and to this day, still designs and builds all the facilities around the zoo now with the help and assistance of the large staff."
Which I might add I wish he was kinder to
Which I might add I wish he was kinder to
Last edited:
Just read this weeks westmorland gazette,exclusive interview with Gill where he accepts the punishment of the court.
This week the gazette received a statement from the management team who said they felt that public perception following the court case was that the zoo was primarily to blame for the death of Sarah,They claim that prior to the tragedy the zoo had the correct protection and protocols in place to ensure Sarah's safety and that she had made errors which led to her death.
It was a tragic set of errors to make but there were many safeguards and opportunities in place to prevent this tragedy.We deeply regret the accident that occurred and do not wish to lay the blame on anyone for this awful outcome.
The statement was sent on behalf of 20 to 30 members of the management team and was fully supported by the zoo owner David Gill
Still no apology forthcoming
I will leave you to draw your own conclusions but the crass attitude of this zoo astounds me beyond belief
This week the gazette received a statement from the management team who said they felt that public perception following the court case was that the zoo was primarily to blame for the death of Sarah,They claim that prior to the tragedy the zoo had the correct protection and protocols in place to ensure Sarah's safety and that she had made errors which led to her death.
It was a tragic set of errors to make but there were many safeguards and opportunities in place to prevent this tragedy.We deeply regret the accident that occurred and do not wish to lay the blame on anyone for this awful outcome.
The statement was sent on behalf of 20 to 30 members of the management team and was fully supported by the zoo owner David Gill
Still no apology forthcoming
I will leave you to draw your own conclusions but the crass attitude of this zoo astounds me beyond belief
Reading the statement carefully, the zoo contradicts itself yet again, and it is typical of other statements from the zoo/David Gill. It is hard to know what to believe.
There are indeed a few zoos, and zoo owners, who have done some silly things it is true, but the big difference is that they have learnt from their mistakes, unlike David Gill (and South Lakes).
20 to 30 members in the management team? No wonder things go wrong!
Alan
Alan
Apparently David Gill has "now gone back on his decision" to hand the place over to a trust (no surprise there then), he is also being accused of "interfering" with the "new management team" and there have been complaints about animal welfare at the zoo.
It is very hard to see how the zoo can move on properly, even if Gill moves to outer Mongolia, I think too much water has passed under this particular bridge.
Unless a strong management team can be left to rectify all the issues, without Gill (obviously), and with the councils full support. Without the councils blessing, and licence renewal of course, they might as well shut the place. I honestly don`t think they care too much about the "extra tourism income" the place may, or may not, bring to the local area anymore.The zoo has also brought nothing but bad publicity to the area and the council must surely be tired of it all by now.
It is very hard to see how the zoo can move on properly, even if Gill moves to outer Mongolia, I think too much water has passed under this particular bridge.
Unless a strong management team can be left to rectify all the issues, without Gill (obviously), and with the councils full support. Without the councils blessing, and licence renewal of course, they might as well shut the place. I honestly don`t think they care too much about the "extra tourism income" the place may, or may not, bring to the local area anymore.The zoo has also brought nothing but bad publicity to the area and the council must surely be tired of it all by now.
The "Trust" he wants to "hand over to" will be a trust he has set up though...... As is the "Sumatran Tiger Trust" ... The monies we ALL threw / throw into buckets is for the S T Trust along with the other money raising, .... a trust he owns... I was shocked to be told that this "trust" was his... With the way things seem to be going and the statements he is making either he definitely knows something we dont or he is VERY stupid. Not too sure which.
sooty mangabey
Well-Known Member
AND Sooty.... To categorize my own opinion to which im entitled to as "bonkers" is not polite in my opinion and if I were to give an opinion on someone else's written piece I would do it nicely there are ways to say exactly the same thing but in different words ... I will tell you my motto though. if you cant say something nice.... DON'T say nothing at all
Sorry - only just seen this. No offence was intended: "bonkers" in this case was meant as fairly harmless adjective.
i agree, it's always important to maintain good manners, especially in a forum where it is possible for physical separation and near-anonymity to encourage us to write things that we might not say in person...
....which is, I think, a trap into which Gill's followers sometimes fall. I have no liking for the man, and a great deal of disliking (he would certainly merit something rather more acerbic than "bonkers"!), but the assault on him from some contributors to this forum are deeply personal, unrelenting and, possibly, one-sided.
Perhaps to use a quote from a councillor, " ""Dalton can survive without the zoo," says Coun Barry Doughty. It's an "economic island" (BBC NWT twitter)"
This is the same councilor that put forward and voted for the only fire station in Dalton to be closed.
And the link between the zoo and the fire station is what, exactly?
EXTREMELY interesting special meeting called by Barrow Council There is a PDF and makes VERY VERY interesting reading and from how I read it Barrow Councill seem to have ran out of patience .... Barrow BC - Licensing Regulatory Committee 5/6/7july LSREG567JULY
Yes I agree, very interesting and very detailed.
It would appear that in May, the inspectors recommended that the zoo`s licence NOT BE RENEWED by the council, which is no real surprise, but what is more surprising is that the zoo does not appear to have rectified the issues from before. It is also surprising how they have treated David Armitage, considering his vast zoo experience, he was being "trained" by Gill - because he said he was "old school", well firstly what is wrong with being that anyway? And secondly - being trained by Gill - really!!
That is a joke.
Its not positive because I don't think any of us *want* South Lakes to close - what we do want is for new management to come in and sort out the problems that are affecting the running of the zoo and its licence. It seems from that report above that they've been given a final 6 months before the licence *will* be removed if nothing changes......
True, we don`t want it to close - for the animals sake. However I can`t see much hope for it unless Gill leaves it completely, and I am sure he wont do that.(?)
He has a big problem with the council, and always has, and they have a big problem with him, unfortunately it is has become a personal issue in many ways. The licence recommendations and the licence renewal/refusal issue are perhaps seen as a way to get rid of him? Even though they are also genuine concerns for the zoo and how it is being run.
That is an improper suggestion. The Council must act, and must be seen to act, in a fair and impartial manner. On the other hand, if any zoo does not fulfil all the conditions required to renew its Zoo Licence, the local authority cannot issue a new licence.
Alan
The company also has a potentially massive problem with HMRC -the notes to the accounts mention that they're investigating the company's use of an "EBT scheme". Without getting too technical they're, at the very best, borderline legal and, in my opinion, ethically disgraceful -regardless of legality many of them are being successfully dismantled by HMRC usually using new (GAAR, if you're interested) rules.
The potential liability to the company should HMRC win their argument (though, no doubt, the company could and would appeal to, at least delay matters) would exceed £1,000,000*
.*Though, for balance, it should be noted that HMRC often "over-egg" calculations of liabilities through technical errors and/or political reasons.