Chester Zoo New director
- Thread starter Nisha
- Start date
The link seems to have been taken down: perhaps someone has blundered.
Alan
Alan
Zooplantman
Well-Known Member
A really really pointless April Fool story?
Nothing ever escapes Google's clutches:
Chester Zoo Director General Gordon McGregor Reid to step down later this year - Chester Chronicle
That, unfortunately, doesn't look like an April Fool's joke. Perhaps The Chronicle blundered and broke an embargo, but if it is indeed correct, we should applaud Mr. McGregor Reid for his work at the zoo over the last fifteen years.
Chester Zoo Director General Gordon McGregor Reid to step down later this year - Chester Chronicle
That, unfortunately, doesn't look like an April Fool's joke. Perhaps The Chronicle blundered and broke an embargo, but if it is indeed correct, we should applaud Mr. McGregor Reid for his work at the zoo over the last fifteen years.
zoogiraffe
Well-Known Member
Suspect the new Director already works at the Zoo as the Zoo tends to prefer to promote from within these days.
Gentle Giant
Well-Known Member
I won't be surprised if Mark Pilgrim gets promoted to the Director.
If as seems to be the case McGregor Reid is about the step down, his replacement will already be at Chester Zoo. The team is a good one ..., so I would expect a candidate from within the ranks too! 
zoogiraffe
Well-Known Member
This is true I have a letter through the post today informing of Gordons decision to stand down after 18 years at the Zoo.
It has also been confirmed today on the official website of Chester Zoo:
Chester Zoo - Gordon Mcgregor Reid to leave position at Zoo
Chester Zoo - Gordon Mcgregor Reid to leave position at Zoo
On a side issue to this, in relation to the letter re. the directors resignation.
My husband received a letter about this today. We have been joint members for many years - neither of us being a lone member before that. However, the letter is only addressed to my husband. I'm no feminist, but find this very offensive - membership is paid from a joint account, in a joint name, and I see no excuse for this. I intend to (which by convention thta they've chosen to follow is nearly always the man in the case of married people) or some such weak explanation, I think it's still unacceptable - it can't be that hard to set up software to include both names, and since, as members, we're both shareholders, I think it might even be a legal requirement for some correspondence.
Any one else have this problem, or have any thoughts on it please?
Naomi
My husband received a letter about this today. We have been joint members for many years - neither of us being a lone member before that. However, the letter is only addressed to my husband. I'm no feminist, but find this very offensive - membership is paid from a joint account, in a joint name, and I see no excuse for this. I intend to (which by convention thta they've chosen to follow is nearly always the man in the case of married people) or some such weak explanation, I think it's still unacceptable - it can't be that hard to set up software to include both names, and since, as members, we're both shareholders, I think it might even be a legal requirement for some correspondence.
Any one else have this problem, or have any thoughts on it please?
Naomi
I wouldn't have thought it was intentional, most likely a bug or a limitation of the computer system. Alternatively, they may have sent two letters and yours hasn't arrived yet - it took them years when I was an adopter and a member to work out they didn't need to send two magazines each quarter, so I'd be quite prepared to believe they'd send two letters to joint members.
I pay for a joint membership on behalf of my parents. It's in their joint names, ie "Mr. and Mrs." but they only received one letter (some days ago) addressed specifically to my father, even though all other communications are addressed to them both.
It is a bit of a faux pas and the sort of thing people who aren't quite as reasonable as Naomi are likely to complain about, so I'm sure it was accidental, and hopefully the zoo won't waste money sending multiple letters to the same household.
It is a bit of a faux pas and the sort of thing people who aren't quite as reasonable as Naomi are likely to complain about, so I'm sure it was accidental, and hopefully the zoo won't waste money sending multiple letters to the same household.
