[Archived] Extra ! Extra ! Read All About It !

[Stuart]

Not all the time and certainly not in the case of the zoo. The child was able to scramble under a fence into the enclosure - prime responsibility of a zoo is to make sure the public is safe to view the animals and it clearly failed in this case.

The child was able to scramble under a fence because his parents weren't paying attention.

The child was four! He was in a zoo. Zoos house dangerous animals. It's kind of a given that parents should be more aware than they might be in, say, a supermarket.

But even in a supermarket, somebody could walk off with your child if you leave them to their own devices at four years old. Being a parent requires a certain amount of paranoia and their boundaries need to be managed to enable them to become independent once they are old enough to be responsible. Four years old is not old enough by any stretch.

If you expect zoos, theme parks or any other places to be 100% secure, they will be prohibitively expensive to the point of closure, as each child will need an employee to act as minder to them.

Or parents could just be responsible for their own children.

[T J Hooker]

Personally I think zoos that exist predominantly for comercial reasons should be coming to an end anyway, when zoos originally became popular it was because apart from text books there was no other way for regular people and children to see animals that weren't native to their shores. But now with tv documentarys and the like, plus also travel Becoming much easier and more affordable i just dont think the plusses of having zoos outweigh the negatives anymore.

[Stuart]

Personally I think zoos that exist predominantly for comercial reasons should be coming to an end anyway, when zoos originally became popular it was because apart from text books there was no other way for regular people and children to see animals that weren't native to their shores. But now with tv documentarys and the like, plus also travel Becoming much easier and more affordable i just dont think the plusses of having zoos outweigh the negatives anymore.

You have a point. However, not everyone can afford exotic holidays - certainly not ones where you see the kinds of animals at zoos.

There is definitely an educational element. Also, sadly, without zoos, humans would probably have hunted a number of high profile species out of existence.

[perthblue02]

Personally I think zoos that exist predominantly for comercial reasons should be coming to an end anyway, when zoos originally became popular it was because apart from text books there was no other way for regular people and children to see animals that weren't native to their shores. But now with tv documentarys and the like, plus also travel Becoming much easier and more affordable i just dont think the plusses of having zoos outweigh the negatives anymore.

Whilst in some ways I agree about the commercial only zoos, I would imagine seeing an animal in the flesh so to speak is a better experience for young uns than seeing them on tv. Obviously seeing them in their native habitat would be the best but far out of the reach of many people.

Personally I prefer to see some of the native ones over here just in zoos rather than out in the wild considering how bloody dangerous they are Scariest was a herd? of wild camels believe it or not ,totally unpredictable

[jim mk2]

The child was able to scramble under a fence because his parents weren't paying attention.

The child was four! He was in a zoo. Zoos house dangerous animals. It's kind of a given that parents should be more aware than they might be in, say, a supermarket.

Parents cannot watch their children 100 per cent of the time and anyone who says they do is lying.

A zoo has a duty of care to make sure the public is safe from the animals before they are allowed in. The public should be in no danger whatsoever.

I can't believe some of the stuff you come out with.

[T J Hooker]

You have a point. However, not everyone can afford exotic holidays - certainly not ones where you see the kinds of animals at zoos.

There is definitely an educational element. Also, sadly, without zoos, humans would probably have hunted a number of high profile species out of existence.

Honestly though do kids really learn anything at zoos, the majority of kids just stare blankly at the animals for a few moments or joke about and mock the animals then move onto the next 'exibit'

I do agree with you though, maybe its the zoos themselves that need to move with the times and put the educational aspect front and centre, make sure there are zoo workers on hand all over the park aproaching and talking to the kids(and anybody else) explaining more about the animals, ect..

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Surely its a bit of both. Parents can't watch kids 100% of the time but they also have a responsibility for them and their behaviour, just like dog owners have a responsibility for what their dogs get up to. If it was a case of all parents shrugging their shoulders and saying I can't watch them all the time, no matter what their kids got up to, and society accepting this as fine, we'd have a pretty lawless society.

I remember being at a pub around Old Trafford after our FA Cup semi against Chelsea. The pub was mainly Rovers and Chelsea fans but there were a group of Man U fans who came in with their kids. The parents stood at the bar drinking and the kids basically spent their time harassing a group of Chelsea fans, shouting abuse, charging round them, kicking a football that hit the Chelsea fans a few too many times for it to be accidental, and cackling each time it did. Not once in the next 30-45 minutes did any of the kids parents so much as take a wander outside to check on them.

There's the situation where a child gets away for a bit through no fault of the parent, and then there's the situation where the parent simply doesn't give a monkeys, and prioritise their own enjoyment over dealing with any carnage their kid might be causing. Of course in the gorilla case there's no way of knowing which it was, although the total lack of any remorse from the mum's tweet says a bit in my opinion.

[Paul]

The child was able to scramble under a fence because his parents weren't paying attention.

The child was four! He was in a zoo. Zoos house dangerous animals. It's kind of a given that parents should be more aware than they might be in, say, a supermarket.

But even in a supermarket, somebody could walk off with your child if you leave them to their own devices at four years old. Being a parent requires a certain amount of paranoia and their boundaries need to be managed to enable them to become independent once they are old enough to be responsible. Four years old is not old enough by any stretch.

If you expect zoos, theme parks or any other places to be 100% secure, they will be prohibitively expensive to the point of closure, as each child will need an employee to act as minder to them.

Or parents could just be responsible for their own children.

Stuart everyone knows parents are responsible for their children and yes there is an element of paranoia. I've quoted the below before. I'll ask a question:

Do you believe the mother was ultimately responsible for James Bulger's death? Please note the words in bold.

"That same afternoon, James Bulger (often called "Jamie" by the press, although never by his family), from nearby Kirkby, went with his mother Denise to the New Strand Shopping Centre. While inside the A.R. Tym's butcher's shop on the lower floor of the centre at around 3:40 pm, Denise, who had been temporarily distracted, realised that her son had disappeared"

[Stuart]

Parents cannot watch their children 100 per cent of the time and anyone who says they do is lying.

A zoo has a duty of care to make sure the public is safe from the animals before they are allowed in. The public should be in no danger whatsoever.

I can't believe some of the stuff you come out with.

You cannot watch them 100% of the time, but you are responsible for them 100% of the time. Anyone who says otherwise is not a fit parent.

And that is an extremely poor taste question Paul, and you know it. It's about the lowest I've ever known you stoop. Unlike Jim, I expect far better from you. Disgusting.

If I was her, I would feel the burden of responsibility until my dying day. As I'm sure does she.

I'm extremely angry and disappointed in your post, Paul. You have gone down greatly in my estimation.

[Paul]

I'm not stopping low I'm asking you a question. Awkward one isn't it? You are busy blaming the parents when a gorilla gets shot. Where do you stop? Or do you draw a line when it suits you?

I've made the point before and no one cares to answer.

[T J Hooker]

What was the question?

[Stuart]

I'm not stopping low I'm asking you a question. Awkward one isn't it? You are busy blaming the parents when a gorilla gets shot. Where do you stop? Or do you draw a line when it suits you?

I've made the point before and no one cares to answer.

I answered your question, Paul. Several times, including your disgusting rehash. Not that it deserved an answer. I bet you wouldn't use that one in public.

Now I'm ignoring you before I use other words more appropriate to describe how I feel about you and your "question".

"Awkward". Christ, Paul, you're something else.

[Paul]

What was the question?

The point is simple. Stuart does not accept that no matter how good parents are there are times when they get distracted. Very occasionally with devastating consequences.

My point is blaming and judging parents under theses circumstances is wrong.

[Al]

No they're not. They persecuted the Arians who were contemporaries, and undergone many changes over the years. In the first few hundred or so years there were many varying interpretations of the bible. And what we know now as the Catholic church is basically the Roman empire, but in the spiritual world, not the political world. And the Romans were only interested in 2 things power and status.

St Peter the apostle was the first pope. You can't get more original than that.

Protestants are just that, protesting against what was the original Christian religion, the Catholics. Doesn't make it the best one, just the original.

[T J Hooker]

Now it sounds like you're the one with the issue

[Mike E]

The point is simple. Stuart does not accept that no matter how good parents are there are times when they get distracted. Very occasionally with devastating consequences.

My point is blaming and judging parents under theses circumstances is wrong.

A zoo and a shopping centre are VERY different tbf.

[jim mk2]

You cannot watch them 100% of the time, but you are responsible for them 100% of the time. Anyone who says otherwise is not a fit parent.

And that is an extremely poor taste question Paul, and you know it. It's about the lowest I've ever known you stoop. Unlike Jim, I expect far better from you. Disgusting.

If I was her, I would feel the burden of responsibility until my dying day. As I'm sure does she.

I'm extremely angry and disappointed in your post, Paul. You have gone down greatly in my estimation.

No one's disputing parents are responsible for their children but you're still ignoring the zoo and its responsibility to provide a safe environment for visitors.

The Bulger comparison is valid too.

[T J Hooker]

I don't think the bulger comparison is fair, Nobody could have foreseen the horrific things that happened to that boy and ever since that incident i bet parents are far more concious of keeping there kids in sight when when out shopping, but in a wide open place like a zoo youd expect the parents to be even more on the ball, though obviously yes i agree you can't have them in sight 100% of the time, so there's always the slight chance of something happening and the incident with the gorilla is pretty rare to say the least, though I also think that it simply shouldn't have been possible for this to happen with so little effort from the child.

[Stuart]

No one's disputing parents are responsible for their children but you're still ignoring the zoo and its responsibility to provide a safe environment for visitors.

Zoos are safe, by and large, it's why you very rarely hear about one of these kind of stories. They'd be even safer if parents simply kept any eye on toddlers that they are responsible for.

In this case, the zoo's quick judgement, and utmost priority towards the safety of visitors, meant that one of their 'family' paid the price so that the child didn't.

[T J Hooker]

I wonder, if this had happened at a uk zoo would the zoo keepers(or whoever) have had such quick access to a riffle?

[Mike E]

I wonder, if this had happened at a uk zoo would the zoo keepers(or whoever) have had such quick access to a riffle?

Having been at South Lakes Safari Zoo on Thursday, I can say YES for that zoo.

[T J Hooker]

haha What happened to make you say that with such certainty?(or did you just ask)

[Mike E]

haha What happened to make you say that with such certainty?(or did you just ask)

Both asked about it and saw a keeper with a rifle.

[JAL]

Worse still, our taxes are paying for it!

It's bent !

[den]

Both asked about it and saw a keeper with a rifle.

South lakes safari park....... Is that the Zoo at Dalton where a female zoo keeper was killed by a Lion?