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

[Tom]

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

Yeah it's a lovely zoo but the owner is a somewhat divisive figure (nice way of saying absolute two hat) and they have had their share of controversy.

Only last year they announced they were shutting down for good after being bullied by the council, it turned out some of the walkways were rotting and the council simply wanted them to fix it.

Hours after the girl got killed the owner took to Facebook to absolve the Zoo of any blame and put the blame on the girl that died.

He's had to shoot a rare bird before because it got loose and would have messed with the nature of the area

Edit - he's also had to shoot a rhino

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Lakes_Safari_Zoo

[jim mk2]

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.

The parents shouldn't have had to keep an eye on a child - the enclosure should have been secure, end of story. One of the zoo's "family" paid a price because its keepers weren't doing their job properly. You can keep spinning it anyway you like - the zoo is to blame.

[T J Hooker]

The parents shouldn't have had to keep an eye on a child - the enclosure should have been secure, end of story. One of the zoo's "family" paid a price because its keepers weren't doing their job properly. You can keep spinning it anyway you like - the zoo is to blame.

i wish it was "end of story" ffs,

where's this discussion/bicker sesh got any of you, your opinions are all exactly the same now as when you started days ago, you wouldn't even admit it if you did have a change of opinion(and not just this issue but most issues in general)

[Audax]

It was here or in another forum, they talked about these child's backpacks with leashes on them.

[Stuart]

The parents shouldn't have had to keep an eye on a child - the enclosure should have been secure, end of story. One of the zoo's "family" paid a price because its keepers weren't doing their job properly. You can keep spinning it anyway you like - the zoo is to blame.

It's a @#/? zoo, not a soft play room.

Four year olds need supervision. This attitude is exactly why you see young kids roaming the streets on their own or on pairs because their parents have attitudes just like this.

Thing is Jim, I don't believe you even think like this, you are doing this as a wind-up.

[Al]

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

I was not the one to bring the subject up. It's you who did that. My posts are merely observations on your prejudices. As an atheist I have no personal axe to grind, unlike you.

[jim mk2]

It's a @#/? zoo, not a soft play room.

Four year olds need supervision. This attitude is exactly why you see young kids roaming the streets on their own or on pairs because their parents have attitudes just like this.

Thing is Jim, I don't believe you even think like this, you are doing this as a wind-up.

The parents take their eyes off the child for a minute and he crawls into a very inviting hole under a fence. You're right - this is a zoo, not a play room which is why the security should be absolutely rock solid.

Comparing these parents to those you mention is plain silly and if you must be able to see how daft your argument is.

[T J Hooker]

I was not the one to bring the subject up. It's you who did that. My posts are merely observations on your prejudices. As an atheist I have no personal axe to grind, unlike you.

They only prejudice i have is against knobheads

(And gingers of course)

[Mike E]

The parents shouldn't have had to keep an eye on a child - the enclosure should have been secure, end of story. One of the zoo's "family" paid a price because its keepers weren't doing their job properly. You can keep spinning it anyway you like - the zoo is to blame.

Jesus wept...

[jim mk2]

Jesus wept...

... and ?

[Mike E]

'The parents shouldn't have had to keep an eye on the child'.

Suggests zero knowledge about children or parenting.

Even as a teacher on trips, I keep my eye on 30 children for around 5 hours. I manage okay. Parents (with the loving bond that parentage provides) should be able to manage one or two children. Especially in a zoo packed with wild animals.

BOTH parties are responsible and must accept blame. Ducking responsibility (as you implied) as a parent is to fail in the basics of being human.

[jim mk2]

There is no implication of ducking responsibility though I should have said "100 per cent of the time" as I did in an earlier post.

Saying that a zoo is "packed with wild animals" and by implication therefore dangerous must be one of the daftest posts I've seen on here.

No wonder the teaching profession is in trouble.

[T J Hooker]

There is no implication of ducking responsibility though I should have said "100 per cent of the time" as I did in an earlier post.

Saying that a zoo is "packed with wild animals" and by implication therefore dangerous must be one of the daftest posts I've seen on here.

No wonder the teaching profession is in trouble.

Well the incident with the child in the zoo that sparked this discussion was a pretty dangerous situation don't you think? Life ending in the Gorillas case, which also makes me think that an out of control or lost child in a zoo probably pauses just as much danger to the animals as much as to themselves.

[jim mk2]

It was a dangerous situation because the zoo did not have proper security, ie the enclosure fence wasn't maintained properly. If the zoo is doing its job no child should be in any danger in any zoo

[Biddy]

I'm fully with Jim on this one.

Mike, I'm not sure how old the kids are that you have to look after on School trips but I have 3 under 7 and in parks or playgrounds you are forever losing sight of at least one of them for short periods and that's with 2 of us eagerly watching. I often see parents that just don't care and carry on chatting whilst their kids run wild however we don't and you CANNOT keep an eye on them 100% of the time. If you say you can, you are lying. Even for brief periods when they are at the top of a climbing frame and you can't see them in a tower or something. Vital seconds where they are out of the field of vision.

I (as most people) still do not have all the facts of this particular case so don't actually know how distracted the parents were. I however would not normally class a zoo as a "dangerous" place to visit, no more so than somewhere like Legoland. Would you let kids run round the grounds and paths within Legoland expecting it to be safe? Of course you would. Would you expect your child to be able to get over barriers onto the tracks of rides? (my crap comparison of a kid getting into a cage), of course you wouldn't. There is no way, going to a zoo, I would expect my kids to be able to get into any enclosure. I've taken them to a few and never felt like they were "dangerous" places to visit.

[Mike E]

Tbf, I am getting far too high-horse about it. I just feel that people are excusing the parents' role in this.

Yes, the zoos security has some blame (if not most of it), but surely any parent wouldn't let a 3yo out of sight (or hand) in a zoo.

The children I've taken on trips have been ks2 age (7 through to 11), and usually have a second or third pair of eyes with a TA or volunteer. But that's still about 10 children per adult. Successfully shepherding them through the streets of Manchester or even along Morecambe Bay have been two very stressful experiences

So I just feel at a zoo, the watchfulness would be heightened all the way to 11.

[Paul]

Tbf, I am getting far too high-horse about it. I just feel that people are excusing the parents' role in this.

Yes, the zoos security has some blame (if not most of it), but surely any parent wouldn't let a 3yo out of sight (or hand) in a zoo.

.

The point here is that no one is necessarily to blame unless a specific individual can be shown to be negligent.

The zoo will have a licence and will have been inspected accordingly to obtain that licence. Two possibilities here the inspection was negligent or the zoo failed to maintain the required standard. If neither occurred then it is simy a case of security previously thought adequate needs upgrading. Countless examples of such reviews exist.

Biddy puts it all in to perspective. I have three children five years apart and watching each 100% of the time was impossible.

I regularly watch our local primary school crocodile being shepherded up the road. You're right Mike a very tough job.

The fundamental point behind all of this is the blame culture. It probably went something like this. An individual reads a news story and is upset that a gorilla was shot to save a child. That individual posts on FB or similar, others like and share the info and before long hundreds of thousands of people who know very little if anything about the parents are condemning them. People follow like sheep without considering the alternatives.

The simple reality is these parents and tens of thousands of others every day probably got distracted for a short period and the child got in the pen. Any responsible parent teaches a child the boundaries and those children test them. That's how it works. Usually no harm results, occasionally the outcome is devastating.

Condemning these parents though is wrong unless they can be shown to have deliberately acted negligently and as far as I'm aware this has not been reported.

People make assumptions and aportion blame in many situations and generally speaking it is unwarranted.

[T J Hooker]

I think the poor majestic gorilla is gettinf forgotten about in all this bickering

Personlly i think one gorrila is worth a million people

[ABBEY]

so another day of mourning a bloody monkey on brfcs yet people die in Istanbul in a bomb blast and not a word is said.

[Steve Moss]

I think the poor majestic gorilla is gettinf forgotten about in all this bickering

Personlly i think one gorrila is worth a million people

Do you include yourself in that million? If so, you know what to do. After all, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Or is it a million people who don't include you or yours?

[T J Hooker]

If you like, though I didn't really mean it literally, i just think i value nature and the environment above humanity(yes including myself) the world would get by just fine without humans but if the environment failed and nature started to die off then the world would just rot away.
Sorry, I know selfless concepts and ideas are hard to compute for ameericans

or if you're a religous type and believe the universe and earth and all thats on it was created just a few thousand years ago as nothing but a playground for us then...what can i say

[Audax]

Alleged acid attack: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3606210/Teenage-boy-blinded-one-eye-four-suffered-burns-strangers-threw-acid-waited-train.html

[Beta Ray Bill]

so another day of mourning a bloody monkey o

A gorilla isn't a monkey, it's an ape.

That's beyond racist, that's speciesist. 😈

[oldjamfan1]

A gorilla isn't a monkey, it's an ape.

That's beyond racist, that's speciesist.

He's got a right chimp on his shoulder about it.

[Audax]

Belgium concern as WW2 Nazis 'get German pensions'

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36489700

2500 Belgians get pensions from Germany for being Nazi collaborators. You wouldn't think this would still be going on or at least, not a fairly high number like this.