Comments:ITV fined A$3000 for cruelty to rat on "I'm A Celebrity...Get Me Out Of Here!"

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

Start a new discussion

Contents

Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Really?2021:50, 22 March 2011
BANNED IN BRITAIN102:01, 19 March 2011

It doesn't sound like they played with it. Humans. Eating an animal. This is "cruel" in what way?

Fishy c (talk)04:08, 10 February 2010

A glorious example of excessive Bull**** in our wonderous western society. A catestrophic earthquake in Haiti, Nuclear Arms Threat in Korea and Iran, and we're concerned with a down and out reality TV star killing a rat for sustinence on TV. A filthy, disease carrying rat, and we're actually going "protect" it? What about whaling, what about the mountain gorilla?

F*** the board that issued the fine.


(Don't delete just because of profanity, its a quality post)

72.94.164.101 (talk)04:27, 10 February 2010
 

Got to agree. This isn't any more cruel than setting a mouse trap, choosing a live lobster from the tank at a seafood restaurant, or accidentally driving over some insect with your car (Though I don't know for sure, I'm assuming you're allowed to do any of these in Australia). It doesn't even approach the actual animal cruelty that takes place in farms and slaughterhouses. Seems really hypocritical to press charges or fines just because someone does it on TV.

Then again, I've never seen any animal cruelty lawsuits this honky-tonk in America. A girl killed and ate a rat on Survivor this past season and was basically celebrated for it by the host, the other contestants, and the viewer base.

72.192.251.106 (talk)18:49, 10 February 2010
 

If you check the article's talk page, I raised the issue of important information that was absent from the article. This should not have passed review without that being addressed. There was cruelty involved beyond simple killing.

Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs)18:53, 10 February 2010
 

One of the articles mentions that the prosecution claims it took about a minute and a half for the rat to die; I assume this is because none of these actors knows much about slaughtering, but they know they're hungry. If that (the time it took) is the extent of the evidence the media has reported on, I'd further assume ITV paid the A$3000 just to get past this, not because they really think they did anything wrong.

Fishy c (talk)19:25, 10 February 2010
 

Now that is something I can agree on. Ultimately, the individuals are guilty for not at least trying to expediate the lingering death (if indeed they didn't; I don't know). Prosecuting the company looks like it is simply for headlines.

Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs)19:52, 10 February 2010

Guilty of not expediating a rat's death? I assume it's not like they cut it's throat and sat there laughing for a minute and a half and just waiting for it to die. I don't know that for sure as I haven't watched the program since its boring US debut in 2000. But like Fishy said, they're not experts at slaughtering animals. Anyone should do this if they're hungry enough.

I just wish ITV would have the guts up to stand up to this rather than (essentially) paying the prosecution off.

208.18.90.115 (talk)21:38, 11 February 2010

I did make the disclaimer I didn't know if they had simply waited or not; you have apparently ignored that. I would agree that ITV should have defended; I suspect they wanted to appear remorseful in the eyes of the public, who they perceived as being against them. If so, they made an eror of judgement; I'm sure the public would've stuck by them.

Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs)21:41, 11 February 2010
 

It's unlikely that they "sat there laughing" but it's not inconceivable that they could have been fascinated by its dying; in which case I would have preferred that the contestants acknowledge that it was their responsibility to finish it off and that they failed to do so in a timely or efficient manner. Ultimately, neither this article nor the sources really explains what happened, and the show's viewer base does not seem to include anyone who comments on Wikinews, so all we can do is discuss possibilities, and it's easy to run away with assumptions like I did when I opened the thread. I admit I had a bit of a knee-jerk reaction.

Fishy c (talk)22:20, 11 February 2010
 
 

Oh come on. There are executions that take as long for humans to die, not to mention animal testing. How can anyone give a rat's a$$ (pardon) about this?

67.220.5.191 (talk)06:40, 11 February 2010
 

I happen to believe that both are wrong, so easily. (Note that I am on the fence about humane human executions)

Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs)07:44, 11 February 2010
 

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?

216.11.96.2 (talk)13:22, 11 February 2010

I take it you haven't read the conversation above?

Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs)17:51, 11 February 2010
 

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.

70.94.20.68 (talk)19:25, 17 February 2010
 

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.

Fishy c (talk)18:46, 18 February 2010
 

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?

70.94.20.68 (talk)14:49, 19 February 2010

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.

Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs)14:59, 19 February 2010
Edited by author.
Last edit: 18:29, 19 March 2011

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

BarkingFish (talk)02:45, 19 March 2011

Interesting. Thanks Fish.

Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs)11:31, 19 March 2011
 

Thankyou, other Fish. :)

Fishy c (talk)21:42, 22 March 2011
 

"charges against Manning". How apt in retrospect.

μ21:50, 22 March 2011
 
 
 
 
 

BANNED IN BRITAIN

BANNED IN BRITAIN

38.101.18.2 (talk)20:29, 11 February 2010

banned in Britain?...GOOD SHOW!! Why can't stupid people leave animals alone.

156.8.251.250 (talk)02:01, 19 March 2011