Will be interesting to see if they'll have a mandatory donation this year.
~Thylo
~Thylo
South Lakes Wild Animal Park South Lakes discussion thread
- Thread starter Nisha
- Start date
Yes but wasn't there free entry last year that turned out to also have a mandatory donation? I may be wrong but I thought I remembered that.
~Thylo
bigcat speciali
Well-Known Member
The "free" admission is not what it may seem
Numerous questions arise from the safari zoo's posting such as;
(1) " come visit and drop some money in the buckets" - Where, to whom and to what is this money being used for? It is NOT a charity yet and Dave Gill has many millions worth of assets , so why ask for money? ...(2) "Very soon the zoo itself shall become a Charity." - Well NO, because the regulations, the zoo licence and the correct paperwork and passing of who is fit to be a charity must be complied with as per Charities Act. ....(3) If the council deem that there is or was a health and safety risk and a notice or order was served, then the zoo must comply and the paths etc must be made safe and worthy. Therefore (a) is the council acting wrong by allowing the park to stay open and (b) is the park committing various offences as per direction order and safety?
The following link regarding David Gill's CV is also somewhat dubious; https://www.facebook.com/SouthLakesSafariZoo/posts/1028641537192069
Numerous questions arise from the safari zoo's posting such as;
(1) " come visit and drop some money in the buckets" - Where, to whom and to what is this money being used for? It is NOT a charity yet and Dave Gill has many millions worth of assets , so why ask for money? ...(2) "Very soon the zoo itself shall become a Charity." - Well NO, because the regulations, the zoo licence and the correct paperwork and passing of who is fit to be a charity must be complied with as per Charities Act. ....(3) If the council deem that there is or was a health and safety risk and a notice or order was served, then the zoo must comply and the paths etc must be made safe and worthy. Therefore (a) is the council acting wrong by allowing the park to stay open and (b) is the park committing various offences as per direction order and safety?
The following link regarding David Gill's CV is also somewhat dubious; https://www.facebook.com/SouthLakesSafariZoo/posts/1028641537192069
"Zoo management has agreed to stay open" is a very strange statement.
Agreed with whom?
Very odd.
Again.
bigcat speciali
Well-Known Member
The zoo has recently posted the following:
bigcat speciali
Well-Known Member
thanks for that. I like learning new things. Just for two examples
and
Alas though he has erred and many have seen this, but then again this is Mr Gill...
The whole thing is a joke, the man cannot be taken seriously.
How can you run a proper zoo based on the sudden whims of an idiot.
I feel sorry for any poor devil that works there... they wont know what they are doing from one minute to the next.
zoogiraffe
Well-Known Member
Actually I could name atleast another 3 very senior members of the UK zoo world that have also done that,but I will not as none of them have been stupid enough to put the pictures in the public domain!!!!!
True, I know certain people that have done similar things, but none of them have REPEATDLY done stupid things like he has!!!
Can we put this issue to rest? For now at least.
If a councillor has a prejudicial interest in a matter then they should not participate in any discussion of that matter.
Cllr Heath, as an employee, clearly has a prejudicial interest in matters relating to the zoo. She should therefore, as a councillor, not take part in discussing any matter relating to the zoo.
Unless she has done so then she has no case to answer.
The fact that someone has made a "complaint" simply means that someone has made a complaint! It doesn't mean it has any validity.
Of course, if it turns out that Cllr Heath or the zoo (or the Borough Council, or officers) have done something wrong then it would be worth mentioning.
Until then ...
there were four posts removed. One was mine (asking where the quotes bigcat speciali posted were from, as there were no links or references) and one was bigcat speciali answering that question (i.e. they came from Facebook). However the other two posts (by bigcat speciali) were simply cut-and-pastes of what other people have said in the comment sections of Facebook. These are really not relevant for Zoochat. Posts from Facebook are relevant if they are of news items - the random comments from other people can stay on Facebook. There is enough nonsense tossed around on South Lakes threads without bringing more in from other places.
The link to the news article is still there in the quote on SHAVINGTONZOO's post for anyone who wants to read it, and his comment on that matter is an apt one.
bigcat speciali
Well-Known Member
Although it may seem that comments were removed, be it for what ever personal reason, there are many posts on the zoochat site that do come from social media and are included. The comments posted by me were deemed by me as "news" at it was in reference to the safari zoo itself. Yes, I do feel that there is some personal musings that are interfering on both my side as well as on the side of the mod's. It is however noted, that to keep harmony and maintain a decorum, then I accept the reasons from the mod's. I might not agree with it but I do accept it.
As Chlidonias stated, posts and comments from Facebook or other social media sites which are relevant news are fine. Social media can be a wonderful source of information and a good way to keep up to date on what's going on at a zoo. However, random comments posted by random people talking about how they feel about that news are unnecessary and pointless. While I admit I did not personally read the comments posted, it appears to me that they were nothing more than the opinions of random people on the internet and not even those of a relevant professional.
As members of ZooChat, it's our place to post and discuss our personal opinions of these news items, not to take those of random strangers.
~Thylo
that is pretty much exactly right.
It is also a matter of degree. Saying "ooh, some random person isn't happy that Zoo X just did this or that" and posting a Facebook comment from that random person is kind of interesting/funny/provocative/etc, even if it is unnecessary. A lot of people do that here and there as one-offs and that's fine for that exact reason.
However, saying "look what these random people say" and then posting multiple quotes of their personal opinions is just pointless. Making a habit of posting opinions of random Facebook people is also not useful, because who cares. Anyone can find Facebook posts - or Tripadvisor, or Twitter, or whatever other kinds of social media there are - to back up whatever viewpoint they have, good or bad - it's irrelevant.
I've moved some posts from this thread (concerning the presence of David Armitage) to the http://www.zoochat.com/38/safari-zoo-2016-a-433661/ news thread.
The results of the most recent zoo inspection, in November 2015, have now been released. Possibly the most important point is that the recommendation that the zoo should not be granted a new licence to operate when the current one expires in June 2016.
An excerpt from the linked news article is below:
For more information, including a list of the key failings and observations, there is an article on the matter here:
Public 'in danger' at Dalton zoo - government inspectors
If I locate the actual report I will edit this post to add a link.
An excerpt from the linked news article is below:
For more information, including a list of the key failings and observations, there is an article on the matter here:
Public 'in danger' at Dalton zoo - government inspectors
If I locate the actual report I will edit this post to add a link.