Really?
A rat is a rat. Granted, they can think and feel. But, it's food. They were out in the middle of nowhere, and the film crew wasn't giving them any sandwiches. If they feel hungry enough for a rat, let 'em eat a boatful. I can't even imagine how bored or hyper-sensative someone must have been to deem that an act of animal cruelty, much less bring up a lawsuit about it. I think whoever did needs to have a few rats set loose in their house. Maybe after a week, they'd lose their sympathy, ne?
Ban cooking shows. They show the mutilation of dead animals for enjoyment (taste and presentation)
If killing and eating a rat out of hunger is animal cruelty, then the killing and further mutilation of an animal for aesthetical reasons surely is.
I'm unaware of any cooking show that starts with ingredients that are still alive and kicking. In the best-case scenario, these charges came about because of a failure to kill the rat in a timely manner. Unfortunately, our article sources don't care enough to explain what we need to make more informed commentary.
i am too lazy to compile a list of cooking shows that feature lobster, softshell crab.... that are "alive and kicking" - but seriously, do you watch cooking shows?
Of course, it would have helped if you too had read the earlier discussion as in to the justification (or lack thereof) of the charges. Your analogy falls flat when you see what facts haven't been properly reported.
Right - let me clear some stuff up. - The animal that was killed, an Australian Jungle Rat, is a native Australian Species, thus protected under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals act*. The chef who dispatched the animal, Gino D'Acampo, has some considerable knowledge of slaughter, but I would imagine he doesn't deal with rats everyday.
The death of the animal took longer than is permitted under New South Wales' Animal Welfare Legislation (90 seconds according to the Australian RSPCA), and the slaughter also took place without an approved method of stunning being applied, leading to the charges of cruelty against D'Acampo and Manning.
Since all native species are protected by law, it's no different to killing an Elephant or a White Rhino and eating it. Showing it during the broadcast wasn't a smart idea for ITV, but that's the background to it.
I quote RSPCA NSW Chief Inspector David O'Shannessy - "It's a reasonable result. It reflects the fact that all animals are protected by the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The animal was killed for a TV show - that's not appropriate. The raw footage indicates that, from the first attempt, it took about 90 seconds before it actually died. The legislation says that an animal can be killed for human consumption provided it does not cause unnecessary suffering. Had it been killed and it was over and done with, we might not be having this conversation."
Source here
"charges against Manning". How apt in retrospect.