Your Shopper
Send your news, photos & videos. Text NEWS SHOPPER and your message to 80360 or click here to email us » »
The latest news for Lewisham and Greenwich, including Blackheath, Catford, Charlton, Deptford, Eltham, Grove Park, Lee, New Cross, Plumstead and Woolwich.
Register now to post your comments. It’s free, quick and easy. £20 prize paid for best comment.
Sign up for News Shopper's free email bulletins and text alerts.
Circus criticised for using horses
9:43am Wednesday 18th April 2007
Comments (117) Have your say »
ANIMAL rights activists have been protesting against a circus using horses and ponies.
Members of London Animal Rights were campaigning in Blackheath, where Zippo's Circus held its show over Easter.
A dozen members protested, among them computer programmer Brendan Jones who dubbed the circus a "cruelty roadshow".
Out of 30 British circuses, only eight use animals.
Zippo's uses four horses and three ponies.
Mr Jones claims the horses are put through intensive training throughout the year and forced to stand on their hind legs.
He says they are used in circus activities from February to October and perform in around 330 shows a year.
The 40-year-old, from Bromley, said: "We were out in Blackheath to teach people about the realities of using animals in circuses.
"People already think circuses have been banned from using them, but when they speak to us after the show they usually agree it's a disgrace.
"It's obvious the horses are stressed. I've seen them in their cages.
"They are sad. They have lost their sprightliness.
"The horses perform for eight minutes and then they are back in their cages until the next show.
"This is nothing but a cruelty roadshow."
Zippo's director Martin Burton says he is tired of protesters making claims without any evidence.
He said: "The circumstances are that in every industry there are good and bad.
"The training is not intensive, there is no beating and we reward the animals with treats. This is how we train them.
"We do it calmly and we train by doing it again and again.
"We go to great lengths to make sure we are not cruel."
He added: "Horses are the world's greatest show-offs.
"They stand on their hind legs and they are fit and looking good. They love it.
"It's natural for them to stand on their hind legs. Have these people never seen stallions in the wild?"
A section in the new Animal Welfare Act, due to be brought in next year, is expected to ban the use of some wild animals in circuses.
However, it is likely circuses will be allowed to continue using horses.
An RSPCA spokesman said: "We believe the use of animals in circuses should be prohibited.
"Due to their mobile nature, circuses have to transport animals.
"They are unable to recreate the environment necessary to allow animals to express many natural behaviours.
"Animals may often be subjected to forced training, performing to timetable and performing acts which do not come naturally to them."
Your Say YourNews Shopper
Mike Naughton, New York says...
12:35pm Wed 18 Apr 07
The horses do not live in cages! The animal rights AGITATOR is a lying, slanderous and yellow-livered busy-body.
Zippos Circus is known the world over as a first-class enterprise. The show should be cherished by the local people and not be a victim of obviously false comments. How come "allegations and lies" are always quoted? Isn't the public tired of hearing the same old song and dance?
Zippos Circus is known the world over as a first-class enterprise. The show should be cherished by the local people and not be a victim of obviously false comments. How come "allegations and lies" are always quoted? Isn't the public tired of hearing the same old song and dance?
Roger Yates, Wales says...
4:40pm Wed 18 Apr 07
From an animal rights perspective, circuses violate the rights of nonhuman individuals. The rights view is not, therefore, concentrated on cruelty issues - that is animal welfarism. The animal rights position would close down circuses due to the rights they violate, so it is not relevant for the circus people to respond with animal welfare claims. The issue is use not treatment.
northerntracey, London says...
5:16pm Wed 18 Apr 07
In all businesses that exploit animals there is cruelty and neglect. Anyone who has ever been to one of these so called 'shows' can see the animals are not happy. Its degrading for the animals and degrading for the people who watch it. Keep animals out of circuses!
James, London says...
5:23pm Wed 18 Apr 07
I agree with Roger Yates. London "Animal Rights" is clearly not an animal rights group. One of the protestors, Mr. Jones, said: "This is nothing but a cruelty roadshow." Clearly, from an animal rights perspective, cruelty is not the issue. Saying circuses are wrong because they are curel is reactionary animal welfarism. The animal rights view is that all instrumental use of animals is inheretly wrong -- a rights violation. This view is qualitatively different from the (animal welfare) view espoused by Mr. Jones.
I wish "animal rights" groups like London "Animal Rights" would stop mis-labeling their reactionary animal welfare claims as "animal rights". This conflates reactionary and staid -- and ultimately inherently useless (we've had animal welfare for 200 hundred years; yet today the human hegemony over other animals has barely been mitigated -- welfarism with animal rights, thereby hindering the development and appreciation of the proper, abolitionist animal rights movement inspired by the theories of Professor Gary Francione.
I wish "animal rights" groups like London "Animal Rights" would stop mis-labeling their reactionary animal welfare claims as "animal rights". This conflates reactionary and staid -- and ultimately inherently useless (we've had animal welfare for 200 hundred years; yet today the human hegemony over other animals has barely been mitigated -- welfarism with animal rights, thereby hindering the development and appreciation of the proper, abolitionist animal rights movement inspired by the theories of Professor Gary Francione.
A Vegan Terrorist, A Speiciesist World says...
5:27pm Wed 18 Apr 07
Abolishing the property status of animals begins here,anthropocentrics.So accept it,domineering commodifying humanists!
veganpanda, London says...
5:38pm Wed 18 Apr 07
Animals do not BELONG to humans, just as women do not belong to men! I totally agree that welfare will not win this fight, it is not the way forward... Abolition of specism is the ONLY way to help save the animals!!!
James, London says...
6:09pm Wed 18 Apr 07
The animal rights debate is about whether our use of animals can be morally justified. Andrew Coates completely misunderstands the issue. He illegitimately presupposes that our use of animals is morally justified, and then merely asserts that circuses are accetpable as long as the animals they hold captive are treated okay. But the question is whether we can justify using animals at all -- whether it is acceptable to make them suffer at all as a result of using them instrumentally.
We recognise that all humans have an interest in not being property -- in not being owned slaves. We protect this interest with a right. Now animals also have an interest in not being property -- in not being owned slaves. The question, therefore, is: do we have a morally sound reason to recognise this right in the human context, but to deny it in the animal context? In fact, humans obviously are animals. So the question isn't: do animals have rights? The question is: given that one species of animal already has rights, do we have a morally sound reason to deny rights to all other animals species?
No- we do not. Whatever "special" charateristic you think humans possess, but that animals lack, that justifies treating humans and animals differentially re: possession of the basic right not to be property, will be either lacked by some humans (e.g. the intellectually impaired) or possessed by some animals.
It is clear: since humans have rights, nonhuman animals should also have them. Human rights logically imply animal rights.
We treat humans and animals differently re: basic rights in the absence of a morally sound reason justifying the differential treatment. This is invidious. It is a prejudice -- speciesism. It is analogous to racism. Racists discriminate against people on the basis of a morally irrelevant characteristic -- skin colour. Speciesists discriminate against nonhuman animals on the basis of an equally irrelevant characteristic -- species membership. Speciesists -- like Andrew Coates -- ignore the characteric(i.e. sentience -- the capacity to experience) shared by humans and animals relevant for the attribution of the basic right not to be property, and instead invidiously deny rights to animals simply because they do not belong to the human species.
It is not the task of the animal rights movement to reinforce reactionary animal welfare -- thereby making the wrongness of animal use dependent on "cruelty" -- by basising its claims re: animals on issues of treatment about "crulety" and "suffering".
It is the task of the animal rights movement to educate about speciesism and animal rights -- the view that all animal use is morally wrong because a violation of rights.
We recognise that all humans have an interest in not being property -- in not being owned slaves. We protect this interest with a right. Now animals also have an interest in not being property -- in not being owned slaves. The question, therefore, is: do we have a morally sound reason to recognise this right in the human context, but to deny it in the animal context? In fact, humans obviously are animals. So the question isn't: do animals have rights? The question is: given that one species of animal already has rights, do we have a morally sound reason to deny rights to all other animals species?
No- we do not. Whatever "special" charateristic you think humans possess, but that animals lack, that justifies treating humans and animals differentially re: possession of the basic right not to be property, will be either lacked by some humans (e.g. the intellectually impaired) or possessed by some animals.
It is clear: since humans have rights, nonhuman animals should also have them. Human rights logically imply animal rights.
We treat humans and animals differently re: basic rights in the absence of a morally sound reason justifying the differential treatment. This is invidious. It is a prejudice -- speciesism. It is analogous to racism. Racists discriminate against people on the basis of a morally irrelevant characteristic -- skin colour. Speciesists discriminate against nonhuman animals on the basis of an equally irrelevant characteristic -- species membership. Speciesists -- like Andrew Coates -- ignore the characteric(i.e. sentience -- the capacity to experience) shared by humans and animals relevant for the attribution of the basic right not to be property, and instead invidiously deny rights to animals simply because they do not belong to the human species.
It is not the task of the animal rights movement to reinforce reactionary animal welfare -- thereby making the wrongness of animal use dependent on "cruelty" -- by basising its claims re: animals on issues of treatment about "crulety" and "suffering".
It is the task of the animal rights movement to educate about speciesism and animal rights -- the view that all animal use is morally wrong because a violation of rights.
Desmond FitzGerald, Croydon says...
7:28pm Wed 18 Apr 07
I have read the foregoing comments with interest.
Is far as the horses are concerned they are well looked after by a trainer who nhas devoted his life to looking after horses and loves them.
They are in perfect shape.
I am a horse-rider and know a healthy horse when I see one.
The horses are not nor neverwere kept "in cages" they are kept in well appointed stables and are 'turned out' every day and allowed freedom to roam for extended periods and to socialise together which is right for thgem.
Theprotestor quite clearly demonstrates a complete lack iof understanding of the species and is just seeking to promote the supposed animal welfare cause for self gain.
I have seen the leaflets that were propogated at Blackheath and they are full of the same falshoods and generalisations.
Also at Blackheath there were clams of ill-treatment to a pet duck because it "was made to walk on wet grass" - you could not make this up.
I was at Blackheath on several occasions ( I went to see the fair there too) and to say that the audience generally having seen the show was against the horse act they had just seen is not true - nor was it true in many other places where I have met audience members of the same show.
Other people posting messages here are disappearing up themselbes with pseudo-intellectual arguements about considering animals as human beings. This is not only incorrect but dangerous and leads to maltreating animals in fact by not addressing the real needs of each species - needs that are addressed well by Zippos.
I have not heard any criticism here of horse-racing or use of police horses - might that be because those organisations have more money to pursue individuals who casually libel them and propogate reactionary lies?
Everybody get real!
Is far as the horses are concerned they are well looked after by a trainer who nhas devoted his life to looking after horses and loves them.
They are in perfect shape.
I am a horse-rider and know a healthy horse when I see one.
The horses are not nor neverwere kept "in cages" they are kept in well appointed stables and are 'turned out' every day and allowed freedom to roam for extended periods and to socialise together which is right for thgem.
Theprotestor quite clearly demonstrates a complete lack iof understanding of the species and is just seeking to promote the supposed animal welfare cause for self gain.
I have seen the leaflets that were propogated at Blackheath and they are full of the same falshoods and generalisations.
Also at Blackheath there were clams of ill-treatment to a pet duck because it "was made to walk on wet grass" - you could not make this up.
I was at Blackheath on several occasions ( I went to see the fair there too) and to say that the audience generally having seen the show was against the horse act they had just seen is not true - nor was it true in many other places where I have met audience members of the same show.
Other people posting messages here are disappearing up themselbes with pseudo-intellectual arguements about considering animals as human beings. This is not only incorrect but dangerous and leads to maltreating animals in fact by not addressing the real needs of each species - needs that are addressed well by Zippos.
I have not heard any criticism here of horse-racing or use of police horses - might that be because those organisations have more money to pursue individuals who casually libel them and propogate reactionary lies?
Everybody get real!
Martin "Zippo" Burton, London says...
8:40pm Wed 18 Apr 07
As proproetor of Zippos I have had my chance to comment although I would like to add that the stables, (referd to as cages) were in fact designed to the specification and approval of BORN FREE. I am now following this debate with interest.
What I should like to see is comment from people who saw my circus at Blackheath or drove past and saw our beutiful horses playing in their excerise areas each day. Some of the commentators so far seem to come a very long way away from Blackheath?
What I should like to see is comment from people who saw my circus at Blackheath or drove past and saw our beutiful horses playing in their excerise areas each day. Some of the commentators so far seem to come a very long way away from Blackheath?
Roger Yates, Wales says...
9:26pm Wed 18 Apr 07
Martin. You are rather missing the thrust of some of the contributions here. Born Free is an animal welfare org, so that will hardly satisfy an animal rights audience. Whether in stables, 'beast wagons' or cages, the rights of horses are violated.
Adrian, SW London says...
10:19pm Wed 18 Apr 07
What a bizarre debate! Yes horses have rights, as animals to be treated with respect & have good care and treatment etc, but I'm afraid that they aren't human and therefore Don't have the same rights. The animal rights do gooders, with whom I agree in some instances on certain issues are begining to sound like they live in Planet Cuckooland I'm afraid. Animals are animals, end of. Throughout the World, for thousands of years, animals have been used by & alongside man, whether as Pets, food, transport etc etc. I fail to see how using horses in a well run circus differs from any of these. Maybe it may not be the perfect scenario for them, but hey the World isn't perfect, there is far worse out there, than Zippo's horses!! Having visited Zippo's and seen their horses running free in big enclosures at many grounds, and their new custom built stalls & horse box transporter. I know that circus animal husbandry & treatment in the UK has improved hugely in recent years. There may have been a publicly publicised case against one circus a few years back in the UK, which I personally was not impressed with seeing, but this does not make every circus cruel!! And certainly does not justify banning them. There are plenty of pet owners out there who love their pets, and just because a few owners mistreat their animals, doesn't mean pets should be banned!! I could go on...
My conclusions are animals are NOT human, don't pretend they are. This isn't a perfect World. Horses in Zippo's circus actually brings beautiful and talented animals to the general public, giving them pleasure & more respect & interest in them!
My conclusions are animals are NOT human, don't pretend they are. This isn't a perfect World. Horses in Zippo's circus actually brings beautiful and talented animals to the general public, giving them pleasure & more respect & interest in them!
James, Lonodon says...
10:23pm Wed 18 Apr 07
Again, I agree with Roger Yates. The fundamental question is not about the state of this or that circus, but rather about whether circuses are justified at all. The animal rights position is that they are not. Circuses are a violation of the right of animals not to be used as property.
Animal rights advoctes should not get caught up in discussions about the conditions of abuse. The conditions are strictly irrelevant to the rights argument. Since our use of animals cannot be morally justified, it follows -- regardless of what the conditions of abuse are like --that all circuses are unacceptable because circuses as such are a violation of animals' rights -- of their fundamental right not to be used instrumentally, as property.
My advice to any rights advocates reading this is: Do not get caught up arguing about issues of animal treatment. Since animal exploiters have no justification for using animals at all, to talk about issues of treatment concedes too much, by making it appear as if, by improving treatment, the assessment of the morality of the conduct can be fundamentally altered. But it does not alter Zippos circuses are illegitimate because they violate animals' rights. Treatment -- stable sizes etc.-- does not come into it.
(A note on Born Free: if they think that certain human uses of other animals are acceptable, then they are a speciesist and welfarist group and have no authority where animal rights is concerned. If anyone wants to explore these issues further, then I recommend the work of Gary Francione.)
Animal rights advoctes should not get caught up in discussions about the conditions of abuse. The conditions are strictly irrelevant to the rights argument. Since our use of animals cannot be morally justified, it follows -- regardless of what the conditions of abuse are like --that all circuses are unacceptable because circuses as such are a violation of animals' rights -- of their fundamental right not to be used instrumentally, as property.
My advice to any rights advocates reading this is: Do not get caught up arguing about issues of animal treatment. Since animal exploiters have no justification for using animals at all, to talk about issues of treatment concedes too much, by making it appear as if, by improving treatment, the assessment of the morality of the conduct can be fundamentally altered. But it does not alter Zippos circuses are illegitimate because they violate animals' rights. Treatment -- stable sizes etc.-- does not come into it.
(A note on Born Free: if they think that certain human uses of other animals are acceptable, then they are a speciesist and welfarist group and have no authority where animal rights is concerned. If anyone wants to explore these issues further, then I recommend the work of Gary Francione.)
Philip Roylance, West Yorkshire says...
10:27pm Wed 18 Apr 07
To try and reason with so called Animal Rights Organisations is futile. However big the enclosures, loose boxes or cages they will never be acceptable.
The Horses on Zippo's are kept in fantastic condition and are looked after 24/7.
My only complaint against Zippo's is that they don't have any other animals.
Animals thrive in Circus. If we were all vegans, who have dictionaries for breakfast, then the British countryside would be void of any animals. Farmers don't keep fluffy lambs for fun. If I were an animal I would want to be in the Circus. Preferably a British or German one, not that I have anything against any of the others.
Vive le Cirque!
The Horses on Zippo's are kept in fantastic condition and are looked after 24/7.
My only complaint against Zippo's is that they don't have any other animals.
Animals thrive in Circus. If we were all vegans, who have dictionaries for breakfast, then the British countryside would be void of any animals. Farmers don't keep fluffy lambs for fun. If I were an animal I would want to be in the Circus. Preferably a British or German one, not that I have anything against any of the others.
Vive le Cirque!
James, London says...
10:54pm Wed 18 Apr 07
Adrian: you are quite correct: animals are not human -- but humans are animals. Therefore, one species of animal already has rights.
A right is simply a way of protecting an interest. Logically, then, in order to be the sort of being that can have rights, you merely have to have interests. Like humans, animals have interests -- in life, in liberty, in not suffering etc. Logically, then, animals are the type of beings that can have rights. There is nothing (logically) absurd in saying that animals have rights.
The next question, therefore, is: do we have a morally sound reason for protecting humans' interests by right, but not protecting animals' interests in the same way? The animal rights position is that we don't. We protect all humans with rights, irrespective of their particular characteristics -- from the most intellectually impared to geniuses. Yet we deny rights to all animals. This is blatantly unfair.
Human rights logically imply nonhuman rights. We deny animals rights because we are speciesist. Animal rights is simply the idea that animals' interests -- in life and in not suffering etc.-- should be protected in the same way that humans' interests are, namely, by right. We are not saying that animals are the same as people.
Animal rights is the next step in human moral evolution.
A right is simply a way of protecting an interest. Logically, then, in order to be the sort of being that can have rights, you merely have to have interests. Like humans, animals have interests -- in life, in liberty, in not suffering etc. Logically, then, animals are the type of beings that can have rights. There is nothing (logically) absurd in saying that animals have rights.
The next question, therefore, is: do we have a morally sound reason for protecting humans' interests by right, but not protecting animals' interests in the same way? The animal rights position is that we don't. We protect all humans with rights, irrespective of their particular characteristics -- from the most intellectually impared to geniuses. Yet we deny rights to all animals. This is blatantly unfair.
Human rights logically imply nonhuman rights. We deny animals rights because we are speciesist. Animal rights is simply the idea that animals' interests -- in life and in not suffering etc.-- should be protected in the same way that humans' interests are, namely, by right. We are not saying that animals are the same as people.
Animal rights is the next step in human moral evolution.
James, London says...
11:09pm Wed 18 Apr 07
Philip Roylance is correct: animal rights advocates will never accept that any form of animal enslavement is acceptable. And you think that there is something wrong with this? On the other hand, I doubt you've ever spoken to an animal rights advocate. What you have seen hitherto -- PeTA et al. -- has not been animal rights. So if you've spoken with any of these types of people, you have not been speaking to animal rights advocates.
The proper animal rights movement -- the movement inspired by Gary Francione's work -- is only just emerging. We think that veganism is obligatory; and we completely reject animal welfare, as being both speciesist -- the system whereby humans ease their consciences about their exploitation of other animals -- and wholly ineffective. We are here to abolish animal slavery, not to measure cage sizes and endorse "humane" systems of domination.
The proper animal rights movement -- the movement inspired by Gary Francione's work -- is only just emerging. We think that veganism is obligatory; and we completely reject animal welfare, as being both speciesist -- the system whereby humans ease their consciences about their exploitation of other animals -- and wholly ineffective. We are here to abolish animal slavery, not to measure cage sizes and endorse "humane" systems of domination.
Roger Yates, Wales says...
12:11am Thu 19 Apr 07
Adrian from London makes a fascinating contribution to all of this. Incoherent bluster, but fascinating nonetheless. However, it is a sad indictment of the present animal movement that Adrian is so ignorant of and confused about the case being made by animal rights advocates.
Such advocates know that nonhuman animals are not human ones. However, human beings are animals. Nevertheless, human and animal rights are different. Animal rights are the basis of human rights all animals share basic interests - but there are many human rights not relevant to nonhumans, which we tend to call positive rights.
Animals are animals, end of is a meaningless and rather silly assertion in terms of ethics. The problem for Adrian is that he cannot prevent himself thinking this is about cruelty to animals or loving them. However, such issues have nothing to do with animal rights thought.
Im happy to agree with Adrian that the world is not perfect: 30,000 human children dying every day of starvation-related issues testify to that, as do the 17,000 or so nonhumans who are killed every second so humans can eat their muscles.
Such advocates know that nonhuman animals are not human ones. However, human beings are animals. Nevertheless, human and animal rights are different. Animal rights are the basis of human rights all animals share basic interests - but there are many human rights not relevant to nonhumans, which we tend to call positive rights.
Animals are animals, end of is a meaningless and rather silly assertion in terms of ethics. The problem for Adrian is that he cannot prevent himself thinking this is about cruelty to animals or loving them. However, such issues have nothing to do with animal rights thought.
Im happy to agree with Adrian that the world is not perfect: 30,000 human children dying every day of starvation-related issues testify to that, as do the 17,000 or so nonhumans who are killed every second so humans can eat their muscles.
Sue and Fred Menke, Sarasota,Florida USA says...
2:01am Thu 19 Apr 07
We have worked on Zippos Circus and were there all the time for several months with the horses. We saw things first hand and at no time did we ever see an animal abused or horses in "cages". All you have to do is visit Zippos Circus and see for yourself. We have worked on many circuses in America and Europe and you will never see animals better taken care of than you will on Zippos Circus. Whoever is making the statements against Zippos Circus is terribly mistaken. Visit Zippos Circus and see for yourself.
A Horse, a field says...
7:38am Thu 19 Apr 07
Why is it that you humans can have "superstars", but we horses can't? I might be an old nag now, but I could show that young lead stallion a thing or to!
Sally, london says...
8:17am Thu 19 Apr 07
mr burton., i have been to your circus and only when i had payed my entrance did i know you had animals. i thought it had been banned,. it does not say animals on the poster. i didnot like the way the animals were used. you criticise those who dont like animals being used as not living near blackheath but your supporters seem to come from yorkshire new york and florida. i dont think any of those are near blackheath
Chris, Hereford says...
8:51am Thu 19 Apr 07
How intriguing to read the bizarre comments of those who would distort a biological fact (that is, that humans are also animals) to claim total equality of status for other animals.
Oh, that we all had time to sit around inventing new strains of abstruse philosophy. These are fascinating intellectual conceits, but they don't relate to the real world.
Man's attitude to that world, including its animal population, could do with changing in many ways. As the dominant species, we are destructive of the animals' environment and thus of our own!
It would be far more useful to take a lesson from the way the circus people work in partnership with their fellow-creatures, communicating with them to help them demonstrate their personalities and their capabilities.
To take the philosophical debate a little further, we should note that the circus people help the animals realise their potential instead of remaining in their primitive state.
It is laudable to help disadvantaged humans develop their mental and physical skills; shouldn't the true Animal Rights person, in their belief that animals have the same rights as humans, subscribe to the idea of assisting animals to do the same?
Oh, that we all had time to sit around inventing new strains of abstruse philosophy. These are fascinating intellectual conceits, but they don't relate to the real world.
Man's attitude to that world, including its animal population, could do with changing in many ways. As the dominant species, we are destructive of the animals' environment and thus of our own!
It would be far more useful to take a lesson from the way the circus people work in partnership with their fellow-creatures, communicating with them to help them demonstrate their personalities and their capabilities.
To take the philosophical debate a little further, we should note that the circus people help the animals realise their potential instead of remaining in their primitive state.
It is laudable to help disadvantaged humans develop their mental and physical skills; shouldn't the true Animal Rights person, in their belief that animals have the same rights as humans, subscribe to the idea of assisting animals to do the same?
Winnie, London says...
9:11am Thu 19 Apr 07
ALL I HAVE SEEN SO FAR ARE COMMENTS ABOUT THESE WONDERFUL WELL CARED FOR HORSES, I THINK THAT THE PROTESTORS WERE ACTUALLY ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE ROAD, THEY SHOULD OF IN FACT BEEN STANDING WHERE THE POOR TIRED DIRTY LOOKING DONKEYS WERE GIVING RIDES BY THE ICE-CREAM VAN, A GOOD WASH AND GROOM WOULDN'T OF GONE A MISS, FOR THE PEOPLE TAKING THE MONEY ASWELL, SURELY THIS IS WHERE THE ISSUE SHOULD BE, THESE POOR DONKEYS HAVING CHILD AFTER CHILD SHOVED ON THEIR BACKS FOR MOST OF THE DAY IN TEMPERATURES I EVEN LIKE TO AVOID.
No Veganism Here Please!, London says...
10:01am Thu 19 Apr 07
Well a heated debate is occuring here!
Hands up those of you who wish to see enforced veganism as a result of an animal rights pressure group!
Do they seek to restrict my rights in such a campaign?
Clearly their agenda was always thus, sadly the general public are slow to wake up to the reality, first they try to ban circuses, then show jumping, then fishing, then little Johnnys goldfish, then meat then milk & eggs!
Perhaps they should be a little more honest as to their intentions in order that the public can make informed decisions as to whether or not to support them?
Hands up those of you who wish to see enforced veganism as a result of an animal rights pressure group!
Do they seek to restrict my rights in such a campaign?
Clearly their agenda was always thus, sadly the general public are slow to wake up to the reality, first they try to ban circuses, then show jumping, then fishing, then little Johnnys goldfish, then meat then milk & eggs!
Perhaps they should be a little more honest as to their intentions in order that the public can make informed decisions as to whether or not to support them?
A bit strong!, Silvertown says...
10:15am Thu 19 Apr 07
Chris of Hereford seems to me to have hit the nail on the head!
Lets get real, this is not about circuses, or probably even animals this is about Power. One group with (what will be percieved as being highly radical-as indicated above- and unnaceptable views by the public at large) attempting to force its view and preferences onto others.
In the past it has apparently been happy to do this by force, threat and by digging up the corpses of loved ones to get its point over, by releasing animlas into the wild to a pretty much certain death!
Being able to read a dictionary and use long words does not make your argument any more valid than another individuals, it does not demonstrate that your argument is anymore thought out than any others. There are postings here that are written in such a way in order to bully others not to post. It seems indicative of the way such 'animal rights' groups operate.
Lets get real, this is not about circuses, or probably even animals this is about Power. One group with (what will be percieved as being highly radical-as indicated above- and unnaceptable views by the public at large) attempting to force its view and preferences onto others.
In the past it has apparently been happy to do this by force, threat and by digging up the corpses of loved ones to get its point over, by releasing animlas into the wild to a pretty much certain death!
Being able to read a dictionary and use long words does not make your argument any more valid than another individuals, it does not demonstrate that your argument is anymore thought out than any others. There are postings here that are written in such a way in order to bully others not to post. It seems indicative of the way such 'animal rights' groups operate.
Becca, Blackheath says...
1:33pm Thu 19 Apr 07
What a vitriolic lot the 'animal rights' activists are, with their bully tactics and psuedo-scientific posturing.
So nobody is fully understanding the difference between 'animal rights' and 'animal cruelty' issues? We do understand your point, but do you understand that the majority of people would like to see an end to cruelty to animals, not an end to man's contact with animals?
I would hate to live in a world without animals in our fields, with no dog walking or cats greeting their owners when they come home. Man and animal have co-existed for thousands of years, in what is mainly a mutually beneficial relationship.
Leave Zippo's beautiful, healthy well cared for and stimulated horses alone. Anyone who knows animals also knows that they don't enjoy being bored, and relish having some purpose in life.
So nobody is fully understanding the difference between 'animal rights' and 'animal cruelty' issues? We do understand your point, but do you understand that the majority of people would like to see an end to cruelty to animals, not an end to man's contact with animals?
I would hate to live in a world without animals in our fields, with no dog walking or cats greeting their owners when they come home. Man and animal have co-existed for thousands of years, in what is mainly a mutually beneficial relationship.
Leave Zippo's beautiful, healthy well cared for and stimulated horses alone. Anyone who knows animals also knows that they don't enjoy being bored, and relish having some purpose in life.
Tony, Halifax says...
2:00pm Thu 19 Apr 07
I myself have had dealings with the Antis. If they are not protesting about animals it is something else like the air we breath. Can they get their facts right before saying things. Horses live in STABLES!!!!! not cages. They are out in fields when not working. At night brought in for their own safety against so called animal rights people letting them loose. What is that all about. Does this not present a harmful act towards the horses. And not only horses. They think it is OK to try to let Lions and Tigers out!!!! If circus animals are ill treated then when are you going to stop TV showing Crufts where the dogs are groomed within an inch of there lives and led on a lead that is kept so short it has to keep its head up. Plus to top it all they sit either in a CAGE or in a bay for hours on end. Another is the horse of the year show. Are horses meant to jump over a course of jumps? These people that go on the TV with dog acts with the dog walking behind them on hind legs with their paws on their backs is this natural? This is all entertainment. Horse racing/jumping, Pidgeon racing, dog racing, Farms, Zoos, need I go on? Zoos are being left alone because they are in breading programmes, but at the end of the day the animals are still locked up 24 hours a day no matter how it is dressed up.
scott, London says...
2:51pm Thu 19 Apr 07
The Animal rights LOT will not be happy until the whole world is eating nothing but greens and beans and PANDERING to thier "four legs good , two legs bad " attitude.
FACT circus animals in this country are all well looked after but unfortunatly a small minority have BRAINWASHED society. Circuses care about the rights animals do have more than the antis as all the antis ive met are just interested in a argument - the animal rights movement is a attack against mankind and people need to realise one thing "help animals , not the animal rights movement" (its a scam)
Maybe they should all be put in a human cannon ball act and shot to cloud cookoo land
FACT circus animals in this country are all well looked after but unfortunatly a small minority have BRAINWASHED society. Circuses care about the rights animals do have more than the antis as all the antis ive met are just interested in a argument - the animal rights movement is a attack against mankind and people need to realise one thing "help animals , not the animal rights movement" (its a scam)
Maybe they should all be put in a human cannon ball act and shot to cloud cookoo land
Martin \"Zippo\" Burton, moved to Watford says...
4:02pm Thu 19 Apr 07
I can see were this is going. The animal rights lobby is losing the arguement. Up to now AR have debated this issue reasonably here. However if they loose here their next step (out of frustration) will be direct and violent action against me. Help!
David Hibling, France says...
4:17pm Thu 19 Apr 07
To argue for "non ownership" of animals would not only mean the end of circus horses but also the horses ridden for work or pleasure not to mention the millions of dogs and cats etc "owned" as pets - where do these animals go? Here at home 4 years ago I was adopted by a cat (I think previously abandoned) she thinks I am an ok guy and I feed and care for her but under MY rules which she is happy about - if I was to diassociate with animals to I abandon her again? Non association/segregation is a strange form of apartheid - ie animals in their corner of the world humans in ours! We do not live in a vegan utopia and therefore in our society as is all association with us and non human animals should only, can only be judged on a welfare issue.
Anon, London says...
4:29pm Thu 19 Apr 07
Having previously been privelged enough to have extensive access to Zippos and the staff that work there I have seen absoultely nothing but a number 1 priority and treatment of the horses and ponies. Every decision taken is based around the welfare and safety of the horses, down to the smallest detail of location of the STABLES (not cages), high water pressure, the location of every piece of equipment around the tent so they don't get scared when walking to the ring etc... The leaflets handed out at Blackheath and recently at Herne Hill did not contain 1 single and I repeat a single factual piece of information or even a small quote from a qualified veterinary expert. The claims of mis-treatment or suffering are completly mis-placed. Whether we as humans have the right to choose the horses life is a valid point but the fact remains the horses are mentally stimulated from the routines, fed, watered, groomed, allowed to interact with each others as normal and provided clean bedding each night. Try arguing to anyone that they can be GUARENTEED this in the wild each day and night. The claims are in my view extremely offensive to all staff at Zippos and most of all Mr. Roberts, the very proud, caring and loving owner of the horses, and his stable hands.
James, London says...
4:55pm Thu 19 Apr 07
Chris: helping disabled people and frocing animals to do tricks in circuses so that circus owners can make money are hardly analogous. Some disabled people require help because their diabilites limit their autonomy -- their ability to live independent lives. Animals, on the other hand (non-domesticated ones, that is) are fully autonomous; they are capable of living free and independent lives. A more apt analogy would be between autonomous humans and animals. Because we value autonomy, we would regard it as an unjustified infringement of freedom to meddle in an autonomous person's life -- it would be authoritarian. Similarly with animals: they are acpable of living autonomously and independently, and so to hold them captive in circuses -- under the absurd pretence of "helping them realise their potential" -- is an unjusified infringement of their autonomy -- of their right to freedom.
You are also clearly begging the question. The issue is whether the institution of animal property can be morally justified. You merely presuppose that it can, and then say that circuses are a good thing because they help animals reliase their potential!
And we are not inferring equality between humans and animals from the fact that humans are also animals. Our claim is that, in terms of fundamental rights, humans and animals are equal. Humans and animals are not equal for some things. For example, when we are deciding who to allocate driving licenses to, humans and animals are obviously not
equal. But in terms of deciding whether one of them should be eaten or used as a forced organ donor, humans and animals are both equal -- they both equally have the right not to be property, not to be used exclusively as a means to another's end.
Animal rights is simply the claim that animals' fundamental interests should be protected by right. That is, animals basic interests (in life, liberty, in not being property) should be protected against being sacrified because it would benefit others to do so.
You are also clearly begging the question. The issue is whether the institution of animal property can be morally justified. You merely presuppose that it can, and then say that circuses are a good thing because they help animals reliase their potential!
And we are not inferring equality between humans and animals from the fact that humans are also animals. Our claim is that, in terms of fundamental rights, humans and animals are equal. Humans and animals are not equal for some things. For example, when we are deciding who to allocate driving licenses to, humans and animals are obviously not
equal. But in terms of deciding whether one of them should be eaten or used as a forced organ donor, humans and animals are both equal -- they both equally have the right not to be property, not to be used exclusively as a means to another's end.
Animal rights is simply the claim that animals' fundamental interests should be protected by right. That is, animals basic interests (in life, liberty, in not being property) should be protected against being sacrified because it would benefit others to do so.
Martin \\\"Zippo\\\" Burton, moved to Watford says...
4:56pm Thu 19 Apr 07
I can see were this is going. The animal rights lobby is losing the arguement. Up to now AR have debated this issue reasonably here. However if they loose here their next step (out of frustration) will be direct and violent action against me. Help!
david, says...
5:28pm Thu 19 Apr 07
Sally wrote:On the Posters Sally and leaflets, they clearly show pictures of horses and as well on the website. So dont use that as your excuse!!
mr burton., i have been to your circus and only when i had payed my entrance did i know you had animals. i thought it had been banned,. it does not say animals on the poster. i didnot like the way the animals were used. you criticise those who dont like animals being used as not living near blackheath but your supporters seem to come from yorkshire new york and florida. i dont think any of those are near blackheath
I have seen how well Tom Roberts Looks after his buetiful horses and how well he treats them. If they were being badly treated then i doubt that they would perform with such elegance and look so great. All these so called animal lovers from the animal rights loony brigade need to do a bit of research. If it WAS cruel, then zippos would be shut down as cruelty to animals is agaisnt the law.
I also seem to remember that one of the protesters had leather shoes on!!!
James, London says...
5:35pm Thu 19 Apr 07
Martin: you say we are losing the argument? In what way?
And the abolitionist animal rights movement is nonviolent. Nonviolence is one of our foundational principles. Veganism is one's personal commitement to a nonviolent way of life. The animal rights movement seeks justice and respect for all species. It is thus the ultimate peace movement.
And the abolitionist animal rights movement is nonviolent. Nonviolence is one of our foundational principles. Veganism is one's personal commitement to a nonviolent way of life. The animal rights movement seeks justice and respect for all species. It is thus the ultimate peace movement.
James, London says...
5:49pm Thu 19 Apr 07
David: the issue is not about whether circuses are cruel. The issue is about animal use -- whether our use of animals can be justifed. In supposing that circuses are okay as long as they aren't cruel, you are merely begging the question about animal use.
Animal rights effectively follows from a very conservative moral principle: that we shouldn't cause animals unnecessary suffering. Eating animal products isn't in any way necessary. We can live perfectly healthily on plant-based diets. We eat animal products simply because they give us pleasure. As such, eating animal products is a by definition a completely unnecessay use of animals. Therefore, anyone who believes it's wrong to cause unnecessary suffering to animals should be vegan. Anyone who isn't vegan violates the principle that it's wrong to cause unnecessary suffering to animals.
And David, it is clear that you are a reactionary who reflexively acts to preserve the status quo. Warning that animal rights supporters are the "loony brigade" reminds me of the supporters of human slavery who warned that the slave abolitionists were "dangerous".
Which animal rights philosopher do you think is a "loony"? Are you going to critique his views for us? Or are you hysterically name-calling because animal rights doesn't conform to your reactionary world-view?
Animal rights effectively follows from a very conservative moral principle: that we shouldn't cause animals unnecessary suffering. Eating animal products isn't in any way necessary. We can live perfectly healthily on plant-based diets. We eat animal products simply because they give us pleasure. As such, eating animal products is a by definition a completely unnecessay use of animals. Therefore, anyone who believes it's wrong to cause unnecessary suffering to animals should be vegan. Anyone who isn't vegan violates the principle that it's wrong to cause unnecessary suffering to animals.
And David, it is clear that you are a reactionary who reflexively acts to preserve the status quo. Warning that animal rights supporters are the "loony brigade" reminds me of the supporters of human slavery who warned that the slave abolitionists were "dangerous".
Which animal rights philosopher do you think is a "loony"? Are you going to critique his views for us? Or are you hysterically name-calling because animal rights doesn't conform to your reactionary world-view?
Fred ex RSPCA member., West London says...
5:56pm Thu 19 Apr 07
The RSPCA are quoted in the above article:
Question: Did the RSPCA once commission an investigation into the use of animals in circus?
Answer:Yes, but when shown the results declined to publish due to the findings which suggested that the animals involved benefitted greatly from their human contact & training.
Link: http://free.polbox.pl/k/kiley/
Question: Did the RSPCA once commission an investigation into the use of animals in circus?
Answer:Yes, but when shown the results declined to publish due to the findings which suggested that the animals involved benefitted greatly from their human contact & training.
Link: http://free.polbox.pl/k/kiley/
scott, London says...
6:31pm Thu 19 Apr 07
there is nothing wrong with :
A - making money from animals , why don't the antis campaign outside steak houses who believe make more money from animals than a circus (got nothing against steak houses , just making a point)
B - animals in entertainment.to say animals cannot be used in entertainment is Political corectness gone mad
A - making money from animals , why don't the antis campaign outside steak houses who believe make more money from animals than a circus (got nothing against steak houses , just making a point)
B - animals in entertainment.to say animals cannot be used in entertainment is Political corectness gone mad
John, London says...
8:48pm Thu 19 Apr 07
Martin Burton should be ashamed of himself, he is trying to muddy the waters by whining about extremists and direct action when all the protests at his circus have been peaceful.
The fact is that even the RSPCA, the most moderate and mainstream animal welfare society, is totally opposed to using animals in circuses, as the article clearly states. What earthly reason would the RSPCA have to lie about circus animal cruelty?
Zippos is one of a dwindling minority of circuses which still uses animals. All-human circuses with acrobats, jugglers, high-wire acts etc are the future of this industry, think of the excellent Cirque du Soleil. It's time for Zippos to drop the animal acts and come out of the dark ages. Otherwise people will vote with their feet and support more humane forms of entertainment instead.
The fact is that even the RSPCA, the most moderate and mainstream animal welfare society, is totally opposed to using animals in circuses, as the article clearly states. What earthly reason would the RSPCA have to lie about circus animal cruelty?
Zippos is one of a dwindling minority of circuses which still uses animals. All-human circuses with acrobats, jugglers, high-wire acts etc are the future of this industry, think of the excellent Cirque du Soleil. It's time for Zippos to drop the animal acts and come out of the dark ages. Otherwise people will vote with their feet and support more humane forms of entertainment instead.
Simon, Stockholm says...
9:21pm Thu 19 Apr 07
Do the protesters at Zippos also protest at showjumping, horse racing, riding stables, dog shows, etc? What do they say to people who have their dog or cat locked in the house all day whilst they are at work?
Andrew, Lincolnshire says...
9:28pm Thu 19 Apr 07
I have had the pleasure of watching Zippo's Circus on numerous visits over the last few years. All the animals i have seen there,are extremely well cared for,housed in purpose built and designed 'stables',not cages and travel between venues in a purpose built horse transporter,the same as police and race horses would.
Perhaps the people who are protesting outside the show at the various venues,should be made to spend a day with Tom Roberts and his staff,to see first hand what daily life is like on a modern British circus for its animal stars.
The RSPCA may well be against animals in entertainment,but it nevers tells anyone connected with circus,what they think is wrong with animal stabling or transport methods. There blanket answer is its wrong and we do not approve.Considering their own commissioned independant report by Dr.Kiley Worthington,who stated that animals were actually benefitting from the training and that the welfare of the animals was not inferior to that of animals in other husbandry systems etc etc etc,i still do not know how they can justify their comments.
The circus industry will never be able to please the protestors,RSPCA etc,so my advice to the GREAT BRITISH CIRCUS industry is do what you do best.Please your customers.
If they want animals,then give them animals.
Perhaps the people who are protesting outside the show at the various venues,should be made to spend a day with Tom Roberts and his staff,to see first hand what daily life is like on a modern British circus for its animal stars.
The RSPCA may well be against animals in entertainment,but it nevers tells anyone connected with circus,what they think is wrong with animal stabling or transport methods. There blanket answer is its wrong and we do not approve.Considering their own commissioned independant report by Dr.Kiley Worthington,who stated that animals were actually benefitting from the training and that the welfare of the animals was not inferior to that of animals in other husbandry systems etc etc etc,i still do not know how they can justify their comments.
The circus industry will never be able to please the protestors,RSPCA etc,so my advice to the GREAT BRITISH CIRCUS industry is do what you do best.Please your customers.
If they want animals,then give them animals.
Irene, says...
10:26pm Thu 19 Apr 07
There is no need to use animals in circuses and the majority of British circuses are animal-free. I hope people will boycott this show.
A Speciesist, SW10 says...
10:41pm Thu 19 Apr 07
No Veganism Here Please! wrote:The postings here are enlightening, they reveal the real agenda of both the Animal Rights & the(inextricably linked)Animal Welfare groups. With postings from people describing themselves as 'Vegan Terrorist' it is difficult to attempt to argue that the movement is the 'ultimate peace movement' isn't it James?
Well a heated debate is occuring here! Hands up those of you who wish to see enforced veganism as a result of an animal rights pressure group! Do they seek to restrict my rights in such a campaign? Clearly their agenda was always thus, sadly the general public are slow to wake up to the reality, first they try to ban circuses, then show jumping, then fishing, then little Johnnys goldfish, then meat then milk & eggs! Perhaps they should be a little more honest as to their intentions in order that the public can make informed decisions as to whether or not to support them?
James may be happy to be a Vegan, I may not be, he of course asserts that in his brave new world veganism is obligatory I do however defend his right to such a choice, something he clearly will NOT do for me and my choices & decisions. His rights and wants are more important than yours or mine!
James confuses me sometimes, clearly I am not as inteligent as he feels he is as he attempts to intellectually bully others here. James Says 'we are not inferring equality between humans and animals' 'Our claim is that, in terms of fundamental rights, humans and animals are equal' Which is it then? Are these statements contadictory? Am I right to be getting confused?
John, be careful quoting the RSPCA, they have difficulty taking the high moral ground having commissioned the Kiley-Worthington Report and then tried hard to bury it when they didn't get the result that they wanted!
James accused the first poster here of being 'Speciesist', maybe he is, who knows. His agenda does not appear to be one involved in removing rights from those around him as the agenda of James, John, Vegan Terrorist etc is designed to do.
Roger Yates, Wales says...
11:35pm Thu 19 Apr 07
"A speciesist" is possibly a racist and a sexist person too. It's all just a question of personal choice, is it? Some want to have sexual relations with children - just a question of personal choice? Human beings are social animals who construct their societies on the basis of their norms and values.
"A speciesist" implies that each individual can simply make up their own values as a matter of choice.
Maybe that's what just happened in the US and A - some guy just chose to shoot over 30 people.
"A speciesist" implies that each individual can simply make up their own values as a matter of choice.
Maybe that's what just happened in the US and A - some guy just chose to shoot over 30 people.
James, London says...
11:59pm Thu 19 Apr 07
Dear A Speciesist:
I am clearly not bullying anyone. I advanced an argument that you do not like, and you maligned me as a bully in order to try to discredit me. If you have something subsantive to say, then I'd be pleased to here it. But since ad hominem is a logically fallacy, we we can ignore your attempts to short circuit legitimate debate by name-calling.
I can see only one argument it your post: that we are restricting you rights in saying that you shouldn't be allowed to kill and eat animals. But of course, there are restrictions on rights. Everyone accepts that one's rights are limited by others' rights. Your right to liberty is limited by other people's right to liberty. We simply extend this idea to animals: since animals have rights, your rights are limited thereby.
And whoever heard of a right to kill and inflict completely unnecessary suffering?! Because this is the right that you arrogate to yourself: the right to kill animals and to cause them completely unnecessary suffering (it is completely unnecessary to kill and eat them). This is a corruption of the idea of rights. Rights are extremely important: they protect our most fundamental interests. Yet you are claming that your "interest" in killing animals should be protected by right; and that it is an illegitimate infringement of your "right" for us to say that you shouldn't be allowed to kill and to cause unnecessary suffering. This is a complete corruption of the idea of rights -- which as I said, are supposed to protect our fundamental interests. Rights are fundamentally supposed to keep us safe from the encroachments of the state. They are not supposed to give us license to kill and inflict suffering on others.
And you misquoted me. I did not say that 'we are not inferring equality between humans and animals'; rather I said that 'we are not inferring equality between humans and animals from the fact that humans are also animals.'
Please do not misrepresent me in order to try to discredit animal rights.
I am clearly not bullying anyone. I advanced an argument that you do not like, and you maligned me as a bully in order to try to discredit me. If you have something subsantive to say, then I'd be pleased to here it. But since ad hominem is a logically fallacy, we we can ignore your attempts to short circuit legitimate debate by name-calling.
I can see only one argument it your post: that we are restricting you rights in saying that you shouldn't be allowed to kill and eat animals. But of course, there are restrictions on rights. Everyone accepts that one's rights are limited by others' rights. Your right to liberty is limited by other people's right to liberty. We simply extend this idea to animals: since animals have rights, your rights are limited thereby.
And whoever heard of a right to kill and inflict completely unnecessary suffering?! Because this is the right that you arrogate to yourself: the right to kill animals and to cause them completely unnecessary suffering (it is completely unnecessary to kill and eat them). This is a corruption of the idea of rights. Rights are extremely important: they protect our most fundamental interests. Yet you are claming that your "interest" in killing animals should be protected by right; and that it is an illegitimate infringement of your "right" for us to say that you shouldn't be allowed to kill and to cause unnecessary suffering. This is a complete corruption of the idea of rights -- which as I said, are supposed to protect our fundamental interests. Rights are fundamentally supposed to keep us safe from the encroachments of the state. They are not supposed to give us license to kill and inflict suffering on others.
And you misquoted me. I did not say that 'we are not inferring equality between humans and animals'; rather I said that 'we are not inferring equality between humans and animals from the fact that humans are also animals.'
Please do not misrepresent me in order to try to discredit animal rights.
Terry, London says...
12:03am Fri 20 Apr 07
I cannot believe the crap I am reading. Since when has any Antis Demos been peacefull? I know of shows and come to think of it Punters who have been verbally attacked and at some vehicles attacked, how is that peaceful? It would be interesting to see how many Antis have been charged with offences for harrassment, disorderly conduct, vandalism etc, against how many circuses for cruelty. If things were that bad and shows were considered bad then the councils, RSPCA etc would take any chance to do it. The fact that they are still running proves something. The RSPCA commissioned a report by their top animal behavourist Marthe Kylie Worthington, and it back fired badly. Although she said there needed to be some improvements, which have now been done, she was in the end satisfied that the animals led a good life. Where judgements have needed to be done they have been. The Antis have not been adverse either to infiltrating circuses and setting up certain events to help the circus people look bad. Look at the news for regular updates on Antis so called peacefull handling of situations. And true how many Antis ANIMAL LOVERS do you see wearing leather shoes etc. I knew some several years ago that were vegetarians. They run out of money and were starving but instead of turning to nature to provide for them they ended up sharing a stew.
John, London says...
12:22am Fri 20 Apr 07
Where on earth have we got onto the line of killing the animals? I thought that the debate was about circus animals!
John, London says...
12:28am Fri 20 Apr 07
While we are on the subject! if circus is considered cruel what about the Spanish High School. What they get the horses to do is so unatural Lets see the high almighty ANTIS try and stop them
Jodie, Birmingham says...
12:33am Fri 20 Apr 07
I have an idea. When Antis show up at a show why not have a counter demo against the Antis to demonstrate about their abuse toward the circus peoples human rights and the punters human rights. As I believe it is an offence to cause suffering to another human being and a breach of HUMAN RIGHTS that is recognised all over the world.
John, London says...
12:47am Fri 20 Apr 07
Thought that you circus folks may want to see this. Found it on another web site. http://www.veggies.org.uk/nar/circus/circustat.htm Forwarned is forarmed.
Roger Yates, Wales says...
12:49am Fri 20 Apr 07
Birmingham Jodie.
What are you on about? You are effectively saying that it is a circus employee's right to violate animal rights.
If you look at the picture of the demo in the original article - what harm to human animals are these people doing holding posters?
What are you on about? You are effectively saying that it is a circus employee's right to violate animal rights.
If you look at the picture of the demo in the original article - what harm to human animals are these people doing holding posters?
John, London says...
12:57am Fri 20 Apr 07
Where on my post was I on about the animals? was it in my sleep? If you demonstrate for the animals why can others not demonstrate about how you treat fellow humans? What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Get your facts right
graham, dorset says...
1:00am Fri 20 Apr 07
what of the rights of the humans in this story.the accusations made by members of the animal rights lobby in this story are direct and highly personal. it is one thing to call for the banning of animals in circuses if the animals basic rights are endangered,but to claim that just because these animals are owned and kept by circus people, that therefore these animals will be treated cruely is grossly unfair,and i am sure highly offensive to all persons accused.
Jodie, Birmingham says...
1:06am Fri 20 Apr 07
Sorry replied on my brothers e mail etc. the above post was from me Jodie. we are both on the same computer. We both have looked at your picture above and yes it looks very serene and calm, but who took the picture? you. And if it was the papers photographer anyone can behave in front of a camera. And by the looks of it it was either before the performance or during when there would be no-one around. You are like a magician! only let people see what you want them to see.
John, London says...
1:16am Fri 20 Apr 07
Thank you for your kind words Graham Dorset. If you want to help the cause of the circus then please lobby your MPs. What happens when circuses gets banned, it is usually because some Animal rights lobby MPs and it goes into a closed debate. The public are not informed about it. Arguements are made against but none made for as no-one knows it is happening. So it only needs one Anti to lodge a complaint and as there would be no-one for circus then the proposal would be passed. Ask all your friends to do the same.
James, London says...
1:29am Fri 20 Apr 07
Animal rights advocates obviously believe in human rights. Humans obviously have the right to do whatever they want insofar as their actions do not infringe either other humans' or other animals' rights.
Human rights logically imply animal rights. Without animal rights, the doctrine of human rights is arbitrary. We need animal rights in order to rescue human rights from arbitrariness. Animal rights complete human rights.
Human rights logically imply animal rights. Without animal rights, the doctrine of human rights is arbitrary. We need animal rights in order to rescue human rights from arbitrariness. Animal rights complete human rights.
Martin "Zippo" Burton, Watford says...
8:51am Fri 20 Apr 07
Am a bit out of sync with this post. Afraid as I have to be up early (to look after circus animals?) I go to bed early so missed many late night posts. Anyway I refer to the post from Roger Yates, Wales on 12:49am today. The photo of Animal Rights protesters at the top of this article was not take at Blackheath. I was there and saw the protestors. This was not taken outside Zippos at Blackheath. Maybe it was set up just for the newspaper? On a number of occasions the protestors at Blackheath engaged in shouting sessions with members of the public, and on two occasions children of adults who had been shouted at came into the circus crying. So lets be clear about this peaceful protest. It may not have been a violent protest at Blackheath, but neither was it peaceful!
David Soutter, North Wales says...
10:49am Fri 20 Apr 07
Yet again animal rights militants try to bully and coerce people into believing and agreeing with what they say.
There attacks on zoos, wildlife parks circuses and aquariums have nothing to do with animal welfare but rather with ending all interaction between humans and animals.
They have an agenda that is based on the old Soviet method of salami tactics never attack the whole as it will crush you but go after each separate part at a time.
They equate the ills of the environment with eating animals; this is all done with no scientific evidence except that dreamt up by American quacks and failed American politicians. The money for their campaigns comes largely from big American militant vegetarian organisations.
They currently seek to have horses banned from circuses how long before all forms of horse riding become a target.
The campaign against animals in zoos is also backed by the likes of the RSPCA and PETA, two of the largest animal killing organisations in the world. PETA at its HQ in Virginia has killed thousands of rescued animals over recent years but in comparison to the RSPCA who destroy thousands on animals in its 51 centres across the UK every week it is a rank amateur.
So the next time you hear these so called animal welfare freaks spouting remember they care nothing for animals what so ever, they care only for pushing their own political programme that will prevent humans and animals interacting altogether. NO milk no meat, not pets that is their goal .
There attacks on zoos, wildlife parks circuses and aquariums have nothing to do with animal welfare but rather with ending all interaction between humans and animals.
They have an agenda that is based on the old Soviet method of salami tactics never attack the whole as it will crush you but go after each separate part at a time.
They equate the ills of the environment with eating animals; this is all done with no scientific evidence except that dreamt up by American quacks and failed American politicians. The money for their campaigns comes largely from big American militant vegetarian organisations.
They currently seek to have horses banned from circuses how long before all forms of horse riding become a target.
The campaign against animals in zoos is also backed by the likes of the RSPCA and PETA, two of the largest animal killing organisations in the world. PETA at its HQ in Virginia has killed thousands of rescued animals over recent years but in comparison to the RSPCA who destroy thousands on animals in its 51 centres across the UK every week it is a rank amateur.
So the next time you hear these so called animal welfare freaks spouting remember they care nothing for animals what so ever, they care only for pushing their own political programme that will prevent humans and animals interacting altogether. NO milk no meat, not pets that is their goal .
sally, london says...
11:03am Fri 20 Apr 07
while searching the www for more information on zippos i noticed that various chatrooms for circus people are asking their supporters to lobby this website in support of animal circuses. my zippo do you need all your cronies to back you up? still not many from london in favour iof your circus i see. we dont need animals in circuses and i will make sure that next time i do go to a circus that i properly check it has NO animals!!!!
julia, says...
1:38pm Fri 20 Apr 07
david wrote:Sally, did you buy your ticket at the circus or on-line?
Sally wrote: mr burton., i have been to your circus and only when i had payed my entrance did i know you had animals. i thought it had been banned,. it does not say animals on the poster. i didnot like the way the animals were used. you criticise those who dont like animals being used as not living near blackheath but your supporters seem to come from yorkshire new york and florida. i dont think any of those are near blackheathOn the Posters Sally and leaflets, they clearly show pictures of horses and as well on the website. So dont use that as your excuse!! I have seen how well Tom Roberts Looks after his buetiful horses and how well he treats them. If they were being badly treated then i doubt that they would perform with such elegance and look so great. All these so called animal lovers from the animal rights loony brigade need to do a bit of research. If it WAS cruel, then zippos would be shut down as cruelty to animals is agaisnt the law. I also seem to remember that one of the protesters had leather shoes on!!!
Astley, Waterloo says...
1:44pm Fri 20 Apr 07
James: Chris said disadvantaged, not disabled.
Some of the extremists writing here have used academic-sounding words in an attempt to give their philosophy a veneer of intellectualism. It shows a suspicious disregard for truth and accuracy to be unable to quote correctly from another correspondent.
Martin is right. You have lost the battle. You have done so on these pages by revealing your true intentions, which are nothing to do with animals. The history and violent ethos of animal rights, demonstrated in the tone of some contributions to this blog, is not pro-animal but inhuman and inhumane.
Thanks for coming out of the closet of pretended respectability; but the long-suffering majority see you for what you really are, and are tired of your attempts to frighten them into submission. Your philosophy is the untenable in support of the unspeakable.
The real people reject the pseudo-intellectuals who preach violence against humans. It is an abuse of the rights of animals that their existence should be used as justification for violence.
Some of the extremists writing here have used academic-sounding words in an attempt to give their philosophy a veneer of intellectualism. It shows a suspicious disregard for truth and accuracy to be unable to quote correctly from another correspondent.
Martin is right. You have lost the battle. You have done so on these pages by revealing your true intentions, which are nothing to do with animals. The history and violent ethos of animal rights, demonstrated in the tone of some contributions to this blog, is not pro-animal but inhuman and inhumane.
Thanks for coming out of the closet of pretended respectability; but the long-suffering majority see you for what you really are, and are tired of your attempts to frighten them into submission. Your philosophy is the untenable in support of the unspeakable.
The real people reject the pseudo-intellectuals who preach violence against humans. It is an abuse of the rights of animals that their existence should be used as justification for violence.
A Speciesist, London, Sally, London, Get it? says...
3:05pm Fri 20 Apr 07
James has given the game away, this issue is nothing but a staging post for a situation where man has no relationship with animals, no pets nada. A situation alien to the population of this country now and at any time in its history. NO milk no meat,no pets that is their goal. It is not often that they admit that this is the case in public because it shows them as the extremists that they are and affects their funding streams. Put simply their views as expressed here largely by James frighten off funders because they are clear that they cannot be seen to be involved with those with such extremist views so far away from the publics view of acceptable its not true. Astley is right, poncing up the language does not make an arguement anymore reasonable or correct. I am no more Speciesist than James is. The difference between he & I is that he feels free to use his dictionary to attempt to bluster people down in the same way that schoolboy bullies use agression & violence. Funny that that sounds like the same bullying which Martin Burton says he saw at Blackheath! This particular Leopard may have come out of the closet but it hasn't changed its spots! Violence and agression in one form or other is the age old Animal Rights way of getting what they want. As I said, out of the closet!
John, London says...
4:15pm Fri 20 Apr 07
I think it is sad that in this day and age, animals are still made to perform tricks for human entertainment.
Horses should be running free. Shame on those who go to these outdated circuses.
Horses should be running free. Shame on those who go to these outdated circuses.
Edgar, London says...
10:52pm Fri 20 Apr 07
Hi John, can you clarify what you mean by running free? Is this running free in a paddock or field or farm, or is this running free without restriction, fence or enclosure however large?
Adrian, SW London says...
12:12am Sat 21 Apr 07
Wow! this debate is showing some true colours as pointed out above. So no animals to have contact with humans at all seems to be the way forward for some by the looks of it! Sally, this is a free country, if you don't want to go to a circus with animals, then don't!! It's not a hard thing to do. There are tens of thousands of other people out there who will be visiting these shows whether you do or don't!
And who is Martin's cronies?! I thought this was just people expressing their opinions on here (strange as some may be!), I can't stand being dictated to, and having my life run by do gooders, sorry!
And who is Martin's cronies?! I thought this was just people expressing their opinions on here (strange as some may be!), I can't stand being dictated to, and having my life run by do gooders, sorry!
Judy, Blackheath says...
2:52pm Sat 21 Apr 07
SALLY what a load of crap you spout. I live in Blackheath and saw the show it was marvellous. As for not knowing what was in the show B......T It is on all the posters and the website. Plus if you paid to go in and did not know that there were horses Why did you WATCH the show. Was it to report back to your collegues? If you had gone to the circus people then they would have gladly given your money back straight away as they would not like one of your sort in their midst. Hope you enjoyed the show!!!!!!!! you must have done if you sat through it. Anyone else would have walked out whether they had paid their money or not. And another thing did you not see the horse tents or the horses grazing? Something not right here, do you wear leather shoes and have a pet?
Judy, Blackheath says...
3:03pm Sat 21 Apr 07
JOHN LONDON - What are you on. To stop horses running free you must stop all forms of use. i.e Police, Racing, Jumping, Social etc. You go and tell little girls that love there ponies like one of the family that they have to give them up. Tell the police that they cannot use there horses or even the Queens Guards. I would love to see you walk up to one of them and tell them that they don't love or look after their horses properly, Wow would I love to be a fly on the wall if that happened. You are all cowards, you pick on people that cannot thinkl for themselves and have to follow like sheep. I dare you to demonstrate outside the Queens Guards then say that you stand by your believes.
John, London says...
3:41pm Sat 21 Apr 07
WHO IS USING MY HANDLE. I am the John supporting circus and someone has come on with the same handle and place going against circus. I want everyone to know that if I post again on here I will use the handle ACE I do NOT want to be put into the the same label as THEM ANTIS.
Thank you
Thank you
simon turner, Slough says...
3:25am Sun 22 Apr 07
God I have read some crap/pap in my life but this is crazy!!
To the silly mamby/pamby nanny state AR and anti's can I point out>>>>
God put the animaals on earth for MAN to eat and exploit says so in the Holy Bible what man shall eat etc etc. Sadly I am not a silver back with a desire for leaves I like a rump steak.
Do you not protest outside the muslem crap slaughter houses where animals bleed to death??
my mom was Joan Crawford my Dad was Bing Crosby my Uncle was Fred West and I learnt about cats from Clyde Beaty (bang bang) do I protest!!
Yes Mrs Cawley-Chipperfield and Mr Richard Chipperfield and sons single handedly destroyed English Circus but not all are the same not all use an ankus or hand held electric shocking divice or pull out the teeth of tigers poke them with sticks MANY DO but and its a big BUT many dont I say name and same the Cawley-Chipperfields of this world but praise the good and caring too.
PS I OWIN goldfish 4 of them do you want to come and spray paint my home?
I'd rather see a tiger in a good circus than its bones and penis in some chineese remedy store
Get our rights right first THE KILLING rooms of China (are we going to boycot the Olympics??) Free Zimbabwe then and only then when your facts are factual and correct and you can name and shame the Circus offenders the beaters the non-lovers then protest.
Sorry but Tom Roberts is not on that list nore is zippos. I have a right to see a circus and my children also have that right>>> what they can not do because of the crap and pap you spill out is see the kind of show I saw Blackpool Tower 1993!!! Finest UK Circus I have ever seen and I have seen them all believe me good and bad and I mean really bad really bad and what you do is you walk out and I have done.
But what you do not do is tar everyone as Mary Cowley Richard Chipperfield. They really are the exceptions and an insult and disgrace to Britsh Circus, world circus and all the great and good animal trainers that there are!
Dont tar but also get your facts right!!!
May all your days be circus days.
lots of love go get serious lives a goldfish owner and ex tortoise, dog hampster rabbit and cat owner yes owner shoot me and who will feed my fish?
I have not heard such utter drivvle since David Ike said Jesus was due in on a 747 from Boston on Wogan!
Your fiction is as good as Mr "weppons" Blair. Yawn.
PS I swat flies and pull their wings off!
To the silly mamby/pamby nanny state AR and anti's can I point out>>>>
God put the animaals on earth for MAN to eat and exploit says so in the Holy Bible what man shall eat etc etc. Sadly I am not a silver back with a desire for leaves I like a rump steak.
Do you not protest outside the muslem crap slaughter houses where animals bleed to death??
my mom was Joan Crawford my Dad was Bing Crosby my Uncle was Fred West and I learnt about cats from Clyde Beaty (bang bang) do I protest!!
Yes Mrs Cawley-Chipperfield and Mr Richard Chipperfield and sons single handedly destroyed English Circus but not all are the same not all use an ankus or hand held electric shocking divice or pull out the teeth of tigers poke them with sticks MANY DO but and its a big BUT many dont I say name and same the Cawley-Chipperfields of this world but praise the good and caring too.
PS I OWIN goldfish 4 of them do you want to come and spray paint my home?
I'd rather see a tiger in a good circus than its bones and penis in some chineese remedy store
Get our rights right first THE KILLING rooms of China (are we going to boycot the Olympics??) Free Zimbabwe then and only then when your facts are factual and correct and you can name and shame the Circus offenders the beaters the non-lovers then protest.
Sorry but Tom Roberts is not on that list nore is zippos. I have a right to see a circus and my children also have that right>>> what they can not do because of the crap and pap you spill out is see the kind of show I saw Blackpool Tower 1993!!! Finest UK Circus I have ever seen and I have seen them all believe me good and bad and I mean really bad really bad and what you do is you walk out and I have done.
But what you do not do is tar everyone as Mary Cowley Richard Chipperfield. They really are the exceptions and an insult and disgrace to Britsh Circus, world circus and all the great and good animal trainers that there are!
Dont tar but also get your facts right!!!
May all your days be circus days.
lots of love go get serious lives a goldfish owner and ex tortoise, dog hampster rabbit and cat owner yes owner shoot me and who will feed my fish?
I have not heard such utter drivvle since David Ike said Jesus was due in on a 747 from Boston on Wogan!
Your fiction is as good as Mr "weppons" Blair. Yawn.
PS I swat flies and pull their wings off!
Roger Yates, Wales says...
3:21pm Sun 22 Apr 07
I wonder if Simon Turner visits sites discussing human rights and taunts human rights advocates with the details of his personal acts of exploitation?
What a bizarre non-contribution.
Then again, he probably does since his Bible defends human slave keeping.
You should move on Simon - try Lord of The Rings for more modern fiction.
What a bizarre non-contribution.
Then again, he probably does since his Bible defends human slave keeping.
You should move on Simon - try Lord of The Rings for more modern fiction.
Adrian, SW London says...
6:02pm Sun 22 Apr 07
Having had another read through on here today, I have to say I disagree strongly, with Roger above. Sounds like he wants to take over the World, convert everyone to veggy, stop all human contact with animals and have a goat for priminster!!
Get a grip, it ain't ever going to happen mate! Take a deep breath and get over it. Simon may have been exagerating in his comments a bit, but underneath it all he is talking sense, which most people will see and realise.
Get a grip, it ain't ever going to happen mate! Take a deep breath and get over it. Simon may have been exagerating in his comments a bit, but underneath it all he is talking sense, which most people will see and realise.
ACE John, London says...
12:56am Mon 23 Apr 07
Simon has gone over the top but isn't that what the Antis do. They like to make us think that they are all goodey goodeys that help dogs and cats across the road when all the time they are wearing their animal cousins on their feet. Do they drink milk? why! they are robbing the cows of the milk, and what about how the cows are milked? hooked up to machines, is that normal? Do they eat honey? What about the poor bees that take all that time to build a honeycomb only to have it ripped out. What about the VEGGIES they eat? that has a knock on effect with the wildlife. The poor starving bunnies having those lovely carrots taken from the ground. Not to mention the worms, ants, flies, OK they are not strickly animals but insects, but you get my drift. Whatever we eat off this world of ours has a knock on effect to everything. So I have a solution for all you VEGGIES and ANTIS out there! Stop eating and save the world. And don't get me started on the water.
John, London says...
1:03am Mon 23 Apr 07
And just a quick note. I have re-read the write up at the top of the page and the Anti talking about Zippo have you noticed anything about the name? JONES, it could just as well have been SMITH, is he hiding behind a name? if so why? It won't be the 1st Smith or Jones I have come across with the Antis and I dare say it won't be the last.
ACE John, London says...
1:05am Mon 23 Apr 07
Sorry that one above was mine forgot my new handle.
Scott, London says...
10:45am Mon 23 Apr 07
Dear Public
The people in this world who are promoting animal welfare (circuses , zoos , farms etc) are the people the ANTIS are trying to put out of business.
The ANTIS could not care less about animal welfare in zoos and circuses, they just want human beings to have no contact with animals full stop - this is unrealistic.
I beg the public to see sense and not listern to these individuals promoting the "four legs good two legs bad "attitude. The ANTIS are against anyone making money from animals because the animals don't give their consent , but people need to realise this is PC gone mad.
The sooner people know the truth about the animal rights movement - the better , because its a scam. Enough said.
The people in this world who are promoting animal welfare (circuses , zoos , farms etc) are the people the ANTIS are trying to put out of business.
The ANTIS could not care less about animal welfare in zoos and circuses, they just want human beings to have no contact with animals full stop - this is unrealistic.
I beg the public to see sense and not listern to these individuals promoting the "four legs good two legs bad "attitude. The ANTIS are against anyone making money from animals because the animals don't give their consent , but people need to realise this is PC gone mad.
The sooner people know the truth about the animal rights movement - the better , because its a scam. Enough said.
simon turner, slough says...
11:29am Mon 23 Apr 07
Thank you for your support, all I was doing was making the point of the crassness and stupidity of the AR and antis.
1. Animals do not have reason hence they are below us in the order of nature/things
2. The lion or tiger in its quarters is not dreaming of the wilds of africa or the peacocks in Inda !! They have no idea or conception and know no different. If they live to ripe old ages and breed in a circus it means one thing>>> as far as they know or are aware they are happy! End Of Story
3. Yes there are bad guys but also good guys and before you open your trap and peddle your views and opinions check and re-check all the facts do not tar with the same brush.
4. Afford those with experience and knowledge the respect and fact that they know what they are doing. The vast majority of circus animals I have seen are healthy and happy and have a good care, after all they are the OWNERS bread and butter and a healthy happy animal is an asset.
just accept that as you have your rights however founded to protest and whatever, I have my rights too, I do not and no-one is forcing you to go to a circus, so please don't stop me! I am an adult and I can soon see if an animal is not being treated right and I protest with my feet, after all the perfect legitimate buisness that the circus is want's bums on seats not an empty big top. With such a big dynasty name having done so much "industry" damage I am amazed that no proprietors has sued for the damage caused and I will say this much, I am astounded that no proprietors speak out about the Chipperfields why? Its not a case of thou shall not get caught, its a case of these are an insult to the profession and should have known better and do know better, I would not let them have the care of a slug!!!
As buisness owners the name CIRCUS has been trashed and no-one has sought damages, I think it would be good to know why.
May all your days be circus days (unless your a Chipperfield of course !!)
Antis and AR get your facts right go find the electrical shockers and the ankus
that every show obviously has!
Meanwhile I must go pour boling water on some antis aww sorry ants !!!
1. Animals do not have reason hence they are below us in the order of nature/things
2. The lion or tiger in its quarters is not dreaming of the wilds of africa or the peacocks in Inda !! They have no idea or conception and know no different. If they live to ripe old ages and breed in a circus it means one thing>>> as far as they know or are aware they are happy! End Of Story
3. Yes there are bad guys but also good guys and before you open your trap and peddle your views and opinions check and re-check all the facts do not tar with the same brush.
4. Afford those with experience and knowledge the respect and fact that they know what they are doing. The vast majority of circus animals I have seen are healthy and happy and have a good care, after all they are the OWNERS bread and butter and a healthy happy animal is an asset.
just accept that as you have your rights however founded to protest and whatever, I have my rights too, I do not and no-one is forcing you to go to a circus, so please don't stop me! I am an adult and I can soon see if an animal is not being treated right and I protest with my feet, after all the perfect legitimate buisness that the circus is want's bums on seats not an empty big top. With such a big dynasty name having done so much "industry" damage I am amazed that no proprietors has sued for the damage caused and I will say this much, I am astounded that no proprietors speak out about the Chipperfields why? Its not a case of thou shall not get caught, its a case of these are an insult to the profession and should have known better and do know better, I would not let them have the care of a slug!!!
As buisness owners the name CIRCUS has been trashed and no-one has sought damages, I think it would be good to know why.
May all your days be circus days (unless your a Chipperfield of course !!)
Antis and AR get your facts right go find the electrical shockers and the ankus
that every show obviously has!
Meanwhile I must go pour boling water on some antis aww sorry ants !!!
Speciesist, London says...
5:09pm Mon 23 Apr 07
It seems that James has stopped posting here, perhaps others were right and he can see that his view is beaten by those with a little more sense and 'speciesism' about them!
Once he was unable to intellectually bully others here he seems to have dissapeared!
Once he was unable to intellectually bully others here he seems to have dissapeared!
Roger Yates, Wales says...
5:48pm Mon 23 Apr 07
Adrian wrote:Some of these posts are truly staggering. In what sense have I talked about taking over the world? Of course, the animal rights position advocates veganism, just as the human rights position wants people to live without violating the rights of others.
Having had another read through on here today, I have to say I disagree strongly, with Roger above. Sounds like he wants to take over the World, convert everyone to veggy, stop all human contact with animals and have a goat for priminster!! Get a grip, it ain't ever going to happen mate! Take a deep breath and get over it. Simon may have been exagerating in his comments a bit, but underneath it all he is talking sense, which most people will see and realise.
How would all human-nonhuman contact stop? We'd have to leave the planet not to have contact with nonhuman animals!
A goat for prime minister?? Well, now that you mention it...
Take a breath and get over it? No, sorry, will not do that - the stakes are too high with about 16,000 nonhumans killed every SECOND just for human food.
Adrian, SW London says...
9:46pm Mon 23 Apr 07
'16,000 nonhumans killed every SECOND just for human food'. Each to their own Roger, enjoy trying to convince the World differently.
Now come to think of it, I have to agree with you on one thing, perhaps a goat would make a better priminster than ours after all. Respect your commitments!
Now come to think of it, I have to agree with you on one thing, perhaps a goat would make a better priminster than ours after all. Respect your commitments!
Roger Yates, Wales says...
1:11pm Tue 24 Apr 07
Adrian from London: There is little enjoyment in it and that's because cultural speciesism is deeply embedded in our society - the very reason why people think and have been taught that it is morally acceptable to violate the rights of others just to be 'entertained' at a circus.
Animal rights is about trying to get people to look at human relations with other animals in a new way. It is very hard for many people to think outside the box, even if they try, and when they do try they are usually met with some version of animal welfarism: note how the circus people have responded to animal rights claims with animal welfare statements. That is because they cannot think about nonhuman animals in any other way. Even their lack of imagination results in the violation of rights.
Animal rights is about trying to get people to look at human relations with other animals in a new way. It is very hard for many people to think outside the box, even if they try, and when they do try they are usually met with some version of animal welfarism: note how the circus people have responded to animal rights claims with animal welfare statements. That is because they cannot think about nonhuman animals in any other way. Even their lack of imagination results in the violation of rights.
simon turner, slough says...
4:49pm Tue 24 Apr 07
What a crock of **** Adrain is taking about!!!!! So what I eat meat! Go figure they were put on this earth for us to eat END OF what has KFC or a yummy steak or mmmmmmmmmmmmmm spare ribs got to do with Tom Roberts and his liberty ponies?? Oops more antis XXX ants to boil
Adrian, SW London says...
7:16pm Tue 24 Apr 07
Simon, I suggest you re read my posts!! I was quoting Roger when I mentioned animals being killed for eating by humans. I am a meat eater mate, calm down, and read the posts properly!!
Tony, London says...
2:17am Wed 25 Apr 07
Roger, Why are you such a sanctimonious t..t! If you knew anything about circus you would think twice about the slanderous way you speak. Do we not also have have in place a International law on Human Rights? You are violating the good name of many circus people with your drivel. If there were any breaches in Animal care on a circus then it would be brought to justice. As this is not happening and not for the want of trying by the ANTIS and RSPCA and anyone else that wants to jump on the band waggon. Then I suggest that you shut up, unless you can bring proper proof that would stand up in a court of law. And by the way if you are into Animal Welfare how come you have demonstrated at a show about a rhino that look ill and was being kept in an improper enviroment. It was ANIMALTRONIC. Can you people not tell the difference? It just shows that you know nothing about real animls to be fooled by a PUPPET. Also your so called president Jodie Marsh made such an outcry about a coat in the BB house that she said it was a gorilla. Gorillas have silver backs not white. Any idiot knew it wasn't a gorilla. Maybe before the next demos you should actually educate your people on real animals so that they know what they are talking about. I will send you some animal dictionarys if you like so that you know what they look like. Even my 8 year old knows the difference between monkeys, gorillas etc. Maybe he could come and educate you.
Roger Yates, Wales says...
4:56pm Wed 25 Apr 07
Tony wrote:Tony: You make my point for me. I talk about animal rights - you think or assume I'm talking about animal welfare.
Roger, Why are you such a sanctimonious t..t! If you knew anything about circus you would think twice about the slanderous way you speak. Do we not also have have in place a International law on Human Rights? You are violating the good name of many circus people with your drivel. If there were any breaches in Animal care on a circus then it would be brought to justice. As this is not happening and not for the want of trying by the ANTIS and RSPCA and anyone else that wants to jump on the band waggon. Then I suggest that you shut up, unless you can bring proper proof that would stand up in a court of law. And by the way if you are into Animal Welfare how come you have demonstrated at a show about a rhino that look ill and was being kept in an improper enviroment. It was ANIMALTRONIC. Can you people not tell the difference? It just shows that you know nothing about real animls to be fooled by a PUPPET. Also your so called president Jodie Marsh made such an outcry about a coat in the BB house that she said it was a gorilla. Gorillas have silver backs not white. Any idiot knew it wasn\'t a gorilla. Maybe before the next demos you should actually educate your people on real animals so that they know what they are talking about. I will send you some animal dictionarys if you like so that you know what they look like. Even my 8 year old knows the difference between monkeys, gorillas etc. Maybe he could come and educate you.
Please be clear, I am not "into" animal welfare. My perspective on human-nonhuman relations is a rights-based position.
As for Jodie Marsh - are you talking about the 'celeb'? If so, I don't know her and she is not my 'president'!
simon turner, slough says...
5:01pm Wed 25 Apr 07
Channel 4 and E4 were full of the Circus last night (NO COMMENT)
BUT to say that Zippo's is UK largest circus is sooooooooooo NOT true
1. Hopkins/Smarts
2. Moscow State
3. Bobby Roberts
etc etc etc
BUT to say that Zippo's is UK largest circus is sooooooooooo NOT true
1. Hopkins/Smarts
2. Moscow State
3. Bobby Roberts
etc etc etc
Tony, London says...
10:16pm Wed 25 Apr 07
Maybe I am getting mixed signals from your posts, but I am getting so P....d off with the attacks on Circuses and Circus folk. All they want to do is live the life that they have lived for many years. They would be the first to admit there has been mistakes made and are working hard to make them right. Give them a break.
carrie, norwich says...
10:32pm Wed 25 Apr 07
mmmm...interesting. A very long time ago i worked at Zippos circus for a Mr Tommy Roberts looking after his palomino stallions. Having always been a staunch vegeterian, now even bordering on vegan, i feel that i must report that at no time did i feel that tommys horses were cruelly treated by their living or working conditions or by tommy and his staff. I hold Tommy as the one of the most talented and honourable horse men that i have come across. Shame his people skills didnt come up to scratch though!
carrie, norwich says...
10:36pm Wed 25 Apr 07
Feel that i must also add that the horses living conditions were far superior to ours their grooms!
Astley, Waterloo says...
11:38am Thu 26 Apr 07
It's wonderful to read the clarity of some of the writing here. Especially clear -- coldly, viciously so -- are statements from James and from Roger.
These two are the most persistent polemicists for 'real' Animal Rights. They make it abundantly clear that their views are far more than just 'views' -- they both tell us unequivocally that they wish to force everyone, including the vast majority who disagree with them, to conform with their strange and violent philosophy.
'Veganism should be compulsory'. 'Anyone who isn't vegan violates animals' rights....'. '...people think and have been taught that it is morally acceptable to violate the rights of others just to be 'entertained' at a circus.'
Couple these statements with the history of the AR movement -- bombings, death-threats, and so on. It's got so bad that even the current Government, not much noted for doing anything about anything (especially those who help fund it!) has passed a special law to deal with these monsters.
In its theoretical form, the AR philosophy is mildly interesting as a debating point. No doubt some who heard the debate would agree, and no doubt some would disagree.
That's our right to choose. But it is morally untenable to claim you are advocating 'rights' and then to make part of that advocacy the proposal to remove other people's rights to further your own.
There's a simple title for this. The animal rights activists, with their pretend-academic credentials and pompous justifications of their horrific and violent actions, are fascists.
Hold what views you like -- we allow you the right to do that -- but don't force them down everyone else's throats! Now, get a life, and use your energies to do something which will REALLY benefit the world.
These two are the most persistent polemicists for 'real' Animal Rights. They make it abundantly clear that their views are far more than just 'views' -- they both tell us unequivocally that they wish to force everyone, including the vast majority who disagree with them, to conform with their strange and violent philosophy.
'Veganism should be compulsory'. 'Anyone who isn't vegan violates animals' rights....'. '...people think and have been taught that it is morally acceptable to violate the rights of others just to be 'entertained' at a circus.'
Couple these statements with the history of the AR movement -- bombings, death-threats, and so on. It's got so bad that even the current Government, not much noted for doing anything about anything (especially those who help fund it!) has passed a special law to deal with these monsters.
In its theoretical form, the AR philosophy is mildly interesting as a debating point. No doubt some who heard the debate would agree, and no doubt some would disagree.
That's our right to choose. But it is morally untenable to claim you are advocating 'rights' and then to make part of that advocacy the proposal to remove other people's rights to further your own.
There's a simple title for this. The animal rights activists, with their pretend-academic credentials and pompous justifications of their horrific and violent actions, are fascists.
Hold what views you like -- we allow you the right to do that -- but don't force them down everyone else's throats! Now, get a life, and use your energies to do something which will REALLY benefit the world.
Scott, London says...
3:25pm Thu 26 Apr 07
Dear Public
1- The circus industry as had 5 prosecutions in over 150 years - in 2004 the RSPCA visited over 7,000 pet owners regarding poor animal care , so ask yourselves "whats all the fuss about"
2- FACT -Animal Defenders International , Born Free CAPS etc etc make more money from exploiting animals than circuses ever do, using them as emotional tools to generate a income for their commercial campaign.
3- Who do these people think they are telling others what forms of entertainment to watch . Please can someone get back to me on this - and don't you dare say "we are raising awareness" because you have no evidence of the people you are protesting against.
4- the only scientific evidence on this topic we have to date sugests circus is not by its nature cruel. The Dr Marthe Kiley Worthington report suggests this after a thorough scientific investigation and inspecting animals behaviour in the circus environment. CAPS , Born Free ADI etc etc all have reports that are BIASED to generate a income for thier commercial campaign , another atempt at them perverting the truth.
1- The circus industry as had 5 prosecutions in over 150 years - in 2004 the RSPCA visited over 7,000 pet owners regarding poor animal care , so ask yourselves "whats all the fuss about"
2- FACT -Animal Defenders International , Born Free CAPS etc etc make more money from exploiting animals than circuses ever do, using them as emotional tools to generate a income for their commercial campaign.
3- Who do these people think they are telling others what forms of entertainment to watch . Please can someone get back to me on this - and don't you dare say "we are raising awareness" because you have no evidence of the people you are protesting against.
4- the only scientific evidence on this topic we have to date sugests circus is not by its nature cruel. The Dr Marthe Kiley Worthington report suggests this after a thorough scientific investigation and inspecting animals behaviour in the circus environment. CAPS , Born Free ADI etc etc all have reports that are BIASED to generate a income for thier commercial campaign , another atempt at them perverting the truth.
Gary L. Francione, USA says...
11:55pm Thu 26 Apr 07
Astley claims that:
That is absurd. First of all, Dr. Yates and James are not seeking to further their own rights; they are advocating for the rights of nonhumans. Second, Astley's "argument", if valid, would imply that we should have rejected the abolition of slavery as a limit on the rights of slaveowners, or that we should reject sexism as a limitation on the rights of men.
It is remarkable that Astley would accuse Dr. Yates and James, both of whom promote nonviolence, of "pompous justifications of their horrific and violent actions" and characterize them as "fascists."
It is sad to see that the level and tone of discourse in Britain are sinking to the level of the reactionary right in the U.S.
Gary L. Francione
Professor
Rutgers University
USA
it is morally untenable to claim you are advocating 'rights' and then to make part of that advocacy the proposal to remove other people's rights to further your own.
That is absurd. First of all, Dr. Yates and James are not seeking to further their own rights; they are advocating for the rights of nonhumans. Second, Astley's "argument", if valid, would imply that we should have rejected the abolition of slavery as a limit on the rights of slaveowners, or that we should reject sexism as a limitation on the rights of men.
It is remarkable that Astley would accuse Dr. Yates and James, both of whom promote nonviolence, of "pompous justifications of their horrific and violent actions" and characterize them as "fascists."
It is sad to see that the level and tone of discourse in Britain are sinking to the level of the reactionary right in the U.S.
Gary L. Francione
Professor
Rutgers University
USA
James, London says...
1:12am Fri 27 Apr 07
Dear Speciesist:
I stopped posting here because you make meaningful debate impossible by turning its presuppositions (i.e. logic and argumentation) into "intellectual bullying". You obviously have no intellectual standards as you are prepared to persistently and publicly misrepresent and malign that which you clearly know nothing about.
I am grateful that Professor Gary Francione (the best animal rights theorist in the world) has defended myself and Dr. Roger Yates against the scurrilous smears of the reactionaries who absurdly seem to think that, if they stopped killing animals, the world would be plunged into an eternal nuclear winter.
Animal rights has nothing to do with violence. It is the ultimate peace movement -- the inexorable culmination of the logic of past social justice struggles.
One day, we will achieve a vegan world -- a world where people are not so chillingly self-centered that they think they have a "right" to inflict misery and suffering on nonhuman animals.
James
I stopped posting here because you make meaningful debate impossible by turning its presuppositions (i.e. logic and argumentation) into "intellectual bullying". You obviously have no intellectual standards as you are prepared to persistently and publicly misrepresent and malign that which you clearly know nothing about.
I am grateful that Professor Gary Francione (the best animal rights theorist in the world) has defended myself and Dr. Roger Yates against the scurrilous smears of the reactionaries who absurdly seem to think that, if they stopped killing animals, the world would be plunged into an eternal nuclear winter.
Animal rights has nothing to do with violence. It is the ultimate peace movement -- the inexorable culmination of the logic of past social justice struggles.
One day, we will achieve a vegan world -- a world where people are not so chillingly self-centered that they think they have a "right" to inflict misery and suffering on nonhuman animals.
James
Megan, New York says...
1:42am Fri 27 Apr 07
I agree with James and Roger Yates, and I, too, am glad that Prof. Francione has voiced his support for them.
We claim to hold as a central moral principle that we reject "unnecessary" suffering. So how can we justify using animals for entertainment, which is, by definition, unnecessary?
We claim to hold as a central moral principle that we reject "unnecessary" suffering. So how can we justify using animals for entertainment, which is, by definition, unnecessary?
Speciesist, London says...
10:23am Fri 27 Apr 07
A Speciesist wrote:James,
James has given the game away, this issue is nothing but a staging post for a situation where man has no relationship with animals, no pets nada. A situation alien to the population of this country now and at any time in its history. NO milk no meat,no pets that is their goal. It is not often that they admit that this is the case in public because it shows them as the extremists that they are and affects their funding streams. Put simply their views as expressed here largely by James frighten off funders because they are clear that they cannot be seen to be involved with those with such extremist views so far away from the publics view of acceptable its not true. Astley is right, poncing up the language does not make an arguement anymore reasonable or correct. I am no more Speciesist than James is. The difference between he & I is that he feels free to use his dictionary to attempt to bluster people down in the same way that schoolboy bullies use agression & violence. Funny that that sounds like the same bullying which Martin Burton says he saw at Blackheath! This particular Leopard may have come out of the closet but it hasn't changed its spots! Violence and agression in one form or other is the age old Animal Rights way of getting what they want. As I said, out of the closet!
You are an intellectual bully who will not achieve his ends because your ends will never be acceptable to the majority largely due to the widely percieved inherent wrongs and extremist issues presented not only in your aruements but your aims and objectives. As for misrepresentation of something I know nothing about, I am happy to accept that my knowledge of his views is limited to reading the views that he prersents here. I only claim to respond to his views and not those of any other. What other knowledge do I need if all I am doing is responding personally to the views he expresses. I am glad that James is able to express his views here as is anybody else. He is not entitled however to force a significantly minority view on others by virtue of his intellectual bulling and others using violent means either here or in the wider world. Dr Gary Francione may be right, his writings may advocate non-violence, sadly there are many that follow his works who choose only to follow the bits that they like and ingnore the non-threatening, non-violece bit. A number of other points have been made, by myself and others, following his postings, perhaps now that James is back he will seek new ways to address them?
Astley, Waterloo says...
10:28am Fri 27 Apr 07
Oh, come on! Pull the other leg, please!
The supporters of Animal Rights are welcome to amuse themselves by playing these silly philosophical games.
But they entirely miss the point; and when their misconceptions are so clearly used to justify the continuing physical violence we see reported daily from 'activists', it is time they took a clear look at themselves and the position they put themselves in by associating with those who are proud to be thought of as 'terrorists'.
How can one have respect for people who, however 'clever' are their theories, can only propagate them by force and by suppressing the free thought and free choice of others.
You make a point of quoting your Academic qualifications -- Professor, Doctor -- as if having letters after your name made your personal opinions more valid than other people's.
Waving your Diplomas in this way simply makes your patronising attitudes even more unwelcome.
It is not 'reactionary' to be part of the real world. The people of the circus are not 'reactionary' -- but they do REACT to the changing attitudes of the genuine general public. They do so by listening to and adopting the advice of expert welfarists, experts in practical (rather than remotely theoretical!) methods of animal care.
Academics you may be. Citizens of the real world you are not: and if you insist on continuing to associate yourselves with a discredited movement, you are bringing Academia into disrepute.
The supporters of Animal Rights are welcome to amuse themselves by playing these silly philosophical games.
But they entirely miss the point; and when their misconceptions are so clearly used to justify the continuing physical violence we see reported daily from 'activists', it is time they took a clear look at themselves and the position they put themselves in by associating with those who are proud to be thought of as 'terrorists'.
How can one have respect for people who, however 'clever' are their theories, can only propagate them by force and by suppressing the free thought and free choice of others.
You make a point of quoting your Academic qualifications -- Professor, Doctor -- as if having letters after your name made your personal opinions more valid than other people's.
Waving your Diplomas in this way simply makes your patronising attitudes even more unwelcome.
It is not 'reactionary' to be part of the real world. The people of the circus are not 'reactionary' -- but they do REACT to the changing attitudes of the genuine general public. They do so by listening to and adopting the advice of expert welfarists, experts in practical (rather than remotely theoretical!) methods of animal care.
Academics you may be. Citizens of the real world you are not: and if you insist on continuing to associate yourselves with a discredited movement, you are bringing Academia into disrepute.
Roger Yates, Wales says...
5:49pm Sat 28 Apr 07
an intellectual bully who will not achieve his ends because your ends will never be acceptable to the majority
There is something that needs to be understtod in this conversation. The ends being referred to are bringing about the acceptance of animal rights . It is not often that animal rights views are aired in a public discussion like this.
As I said in my first contribution, most people talk about nonhuman animal use from a welfarist perspective. If you are finding animal rights ideas odd and unfamiliar it is probably because you are not used to hearing them - familiar instead with welfarist claims (or other nonrights claims) about cruelty, for example.
Dr Gary Francione may be right, his writings may advocate non-violence, sadly there are many that follow his works who choose only to follow the bits that they like and ingnore the non-threatening, non-violece bit.
This issue is quite complex. First, you need to understand that many of those you would label extremists and violent are not followers of animal rights philosophy - they often reject rights-based ideas altogether and for a range of reasons. Many of these people will describe themselves as anarchists, while many in what's regularly called the 'animal rights movement' follow the philosophy of animal welfarist Peter Singer.
Francione's position has been consistently opposed to violence and is only now getting the kind of exposure it deserves.
Finally, you really are saying something very dark and scary if you dismiss someone else's position out of hand. If you are to absolutely rule out their position you are effectively saying talking is useless and that does indeed promote other forms of activities, including those you call violent.
Martin \"Zippo\" Burton, Birmingham says...
12:30pm Sun 29 Apr 07
Hi Dr Yates
Thank you for a very sensible post. I agree that it is not often that animal rights views are aired in a public discussion like this. (And I appreciate the opportunity to get an insight into your views.)
Because it is not often .. some of us may be taking some time understanding that what you are advocating is somewhat different from the accusations which we are used to. (Accusations which are entirely about welfare and not rights.) In our defence, you need to understand that many of us have been abused and threatened by people claiming to be Animal Rights supporters/activists which makes us cautious. My circus suffered considerable criminal damage as a result of the so called animal rights activists referred to in the newspaper article at the head of this string.
Does your animal rights lobby need to be more vocal/public and thus bring about a clearer public understanding re the difference between the animal rights and animal welfare lobbies?
Perhaps you could tell us more about the philosophy of animal welfarist Peter Singer? I would be grateful. I would be happy to take non threatening personal e mails on this issue via my website www.zipposcircus.co.uk
Thank you for a very sensible post. I agree that it is not often that animal rights views are aired in a public discussion like this. (And I appreciate the opportunity to get an insight into your views.)
Because it is not often .. some of us may be taking some time understanding that what you are advocating is somewhat different from the accusations which we are used to. (Accusations which are entirely about welfare and not rights.) In our defence, you need to understand that many of us have been abused and threatened by people claiming to be Animal Rights supporters/activists which makes us cautious. My circus suffered considerable criminal damage as a result of the so called animal rights activists referred to in the newspaper article at the head of this string.
Does your animal rights lobby need to be more vocal/public and thus bring about a clearer public understanding re the difference between the animal rights and animal welfare lobbies?
Perhaps you could tell us more about the philosophy of animal welfarist Peter Singer? I would be grateful. I would be happy to take non threatening personal e mails on this issue via my website www.zipposcircus.co.uk
Roger Yates, Wales says...
2:49pm Mon 30 Apr 07
Hi Dr Yates
~~ I am fine with Roger!! It was Astley from Waterloo who seemed to have become hung up over titles I never used mine.
Thank you for a very sensible post. I agree that it is not often that animal rights views are aired in a public discussion like this. (And I appreciate the opportunity to get an insight into your views.) Because it is not often .. some of us may be taking some time understanding that what you are advocating is somewhat different from the accusations which we are used to. (Accusations which are entirely about welfare and not rights.)
Does your animal rights lobby need to be more vocal/public and thus bring about a clearer public understanding re the difference between the animal rights and animal welfare lobbies?
~~ You have stuck a very large nail on the head here. AR views have been marginalised within the animal movement. The name is used rhetorically as you note, but the philosophy has been often rejected by the corporate welfarists who until recently have been able to gatekeep on issues of who gets their say.
Perhaps you could tell us more about the philosophy of animal welfarist Peter Singer?
~~ Singer is a utilitarian philosopher who does not believe in fundamental rights (human or nonhuman).
He thinks rights are a sort of useful political shorthand, not the basis of a position on human-nonhuman relations . In terms of the philosophy that has had most influence on the current animal movement, Singer's non-rights view was published in the 1970s, whereas the rightists were first published in the 1980s, so Singer got in first, as it were.
Unfortunately many in the contemporary animal movement think Singer is a rightist Animal Aid's founder Jean Pink did, and you can still see Singer wrongly referred to as a rightist in PeTA's book catalogue.
It should also be appreciated that many animal advocates adopt neither a utilitarian or rights-based view, influenced as they are by the principles of ecofeminism or various forms of anarchic thinking (many in the ALF would fall into such categories).
Apart from the rightists, however, most others tend to sound welfarist if they base their claims on cruelty issues rather than rights violations and on notions of not causing "unnecessary suffering".
Anne, Blackheath says...
12:10pm Tue 15 May 07
James wrote:James:
Chris: helping disabled people and frocing animals to do tricks in circuses so that circus owners can make money are hardly analogous. Some disabled people require help because their diabilites limit their autonomy -- their ability to live independent lives. Animals, on the other hand (non-domesticated ones, that is) are fully autonomous; they are capable of living free and independent lives. A more apt analogy would be between autonomous humans and animals. Because we value autonomy, we would regard it as an unjustified infringement of freedom to meddle in an autonomous person\'s life -- it would be authoritarian. Similarly with animals: they are acpable of living autonomously and independently, and so to hold them captive in circuses -- under the absurd pretence of \"helping them realise their potential\" -- is an unjusified infringement of their autonomy -- of their right to freedom. You are also clearly begging the question. The issue is whether the institution of animal property can be morally justified. You merely presuppose that it can, and then say that circuses are a good thing because they help animals reliase their potential! And we are not inferring equality between humans and animals from the fact that humans are also animals. Our claim is that, in terms of fundamental rights, humans and animals are equal. Humans and animals are not equal for some things. For example, when we are deciding who to allocate driving licenses to, humans and animals are obviously not equal. But in terms of deciding whether one of them should be eaten or used as a forced organ donor, humans and animals are both equal -- they both equally have the right not to be property, not to be used exclusively as a means to another\'s end. Animal rights is simply the claim that animals\' fundamental interests should be protected by right. That is, animals basic interests (in life, liberty, in not being property) should be protected against being sacrified because it would benefit others to do so.
RE
Chris: "...frocing animals to do tricks in circuses so that circus owners can make money..."
I'm not a circus or animal expert, I would just like to comment based on my own experience & observations..
I have seen how Mr Roberts "forces" his horses to perform at Zippos - with the softest of vocal instruction & non-invasive, gentle, manual signals. His skill in this area is laudible and is reflected in the attitude of the horses towards him whilst in the circus ring. Anyone who knows horses will have seen that an unhappy animal is often uncooperative,flattening its ears & tail & keeping a low gait. In direct contrast to this, when the Zippos horses work, they can be seen as bright eyed,proud in their gait, very attentive to Mr Roberts and to what they are doing. The horses cannot be made to fake this positive behaviour twice a day at performance time if they are otherwise inherently unhappy or ill-treated. The treatment of any animal is reflected in its general demeaner & appearance, and the Zippos horses are a joy to behold in this respect.
If Zippos do make money from their horses, it is clear that a good deal of this money must, in turn, be spent on their proper care & well-being.
I would also question the benefits to animals of the absoloute autonomous existence that you recommend for them..under these supposedly idealised conditions that you would impose, a horse or indeed any animal would perhaps not always find a sustained, high quality diet, supply of clean water, have vetenary care in the case of illness or accidental injury, would be unprotected from danger or severe weather, and would certainly not receive the medicinal care required to keep it free of natural parasites such as worms, ticks,etc., which, if left untreated, impact significantly on the long term general well being & health of the animal.
In reply to other blogs on this website in general, I don't understand why such forceful argument against the keeping of working horses seems to be directed soley at the circus people, because they travel with their animals.Many other owners regularly travel with their working horses, yet we hear nothing of animal "rights" people trailing & harassing, for the purpose of timing animal journeys, the owners of horses used for racing,point to point,olympic competition,(dont they go on long journeys overseas?) hunting, pony club events,riding for the disabled, heavy horses in traditional shows, police horses, The Vienna Riding school,etc. Dont some of these groups also make money from their horses?...and considerably more so than a travelling circus!
I am puzzled, and would ask why is such specific unpleasantness being directed soley at a small minority group -are they an easy target because they dont have the finacial clout of wealthy racehorse owners for legal defence of their lawful activities, for example?
Is there a more sinister, underlying agenda here?
labelled a Speciesist, London says...
11:36am Thu 17 May 07
Ann
You asked: 'Is there a more sinister, underlying agenda here?'
Below are quotes from the animal rights postings on this thread:
'no justification for using animals at all'
'Racists discriminate against people on the basis of a morally irrelevant characteristic -- skin colour. Speciesists discriminate against nonhuman animals on the basis of an equally irrelevant characteristic -- species membership'
'It is the task of the animal rights movement to educate about speciesism and animal rights -- the view that all animal use is morally wrong because a violation of rights.'
'anyone who believes it's wrong to cause unnecessary suffering to animals should be vegan'
'Anyone who isn't vegan violates the principle that it's wrong to cause unnecessary suffering to animals.'
This movement will not be happy until you have put your goldfish in the Thames, Horses run around FREE (yippee!) but starving and without vetinary treatments, the mink are all released and kill all the rabbits etc, there is no milk, eggs, cheese, leather, new medicines, meat etc in your life.
You bet there is a more sinister agenda here. The sooner the general public wake up and see the agenda for what it is the better.
You asked: 'Is there a more sinister, underlying agenda here?'
Below are quotes from the animal rights postings on this thread:
'no justification for using animals at all'
'Racists discriminate against people on the basis of a morally irrelevant characteristic -- skin colour. Speciesists discriminate against nonhuman animals on the basis of an equally irrelevant characteristic -- species membership'
'It is the task of the animal rights movement to educate about speciesism and animal rights -- the view that all animal use is morally wrong because a violation of rights.'
'anyone who believes it's wrong to cause unnecessary suffering to animals should be vegan'
'Anyone who isn't vegan violates the principle that it's wrong to cause unnecessary suffering to animals.'
This movement will not be happy until you have put your goldfish in the Thames, Horses run around FREE (yippee!) but starving and without vetinary treatments, the mink are all released and kill all the rabbits etc, there is no milk, eggs, cheese, leather, new medicines, meat etc in your life.
You bet there is a more sinister agenda here. The sooner the general public wake up and see the agenda for what it is the better.
Janos Victor Morrissey, Essex, Southend on sea says...
11:36pm Thu 18 Oct 07
I know that the animals are kept clean and tidy, i remember from my childhood how they were kept, I used to live in the circus and i saw nothing wrong with the way that they were being treated
ana, ana says...
11:50pm Thu 18 Oct 07
Irene wrote:I know you in real life, you sure do get about, ur a real dark horse (no pun intended)
There is no need to use animals in circuses and the majority of British circuses are animal-free. I hope people will boycott this show.
andrea, Scotland says...
6:14pm Wed 24 Oct 07
a think this is a load of rubbish! Did these people see the show or the horses? a went to see the show 4 times and the horses looked Stunning and very healthy and were also given treats durin there act!
TERESA, LONDON says...
2:47pm Wed 9 Jan 08
WHILST I DO NOT AGREE WITH CRUELTY, THE USE OF HORSES IN ZIPPOS'CIRCUSE CAN BE NO DIFFERENT TO THE USE OF HORSES AT THE VIENNA SCHOOL OF RIDING. THE ANIMALS ARE MADE TO DANCE AND WALK ON THEIR HIND LEGS. I DO NOT BELEIVE THAT THERE IS ANY DIFFERNECE. IF AN ANIMAL IS KEPT WELL LOOKED AFTER AND LOVED HE WILL BEND OVER BACKWARDS FOR HIS KEEPER. WHY DON'T PEOPLE LOOK TO THEIR NEIGHBOURS WHO ARE ILL TREATING THEIR ANIMALS AND INDEED THEIR CHILDREN BEFORE ACCUSING ZIPPOS' CIRCUS OR ILL TREATING THEIR HORSES.
ANIMALS OF ALL KINDS ARE MADE TO DO TRICKS WHAT DO THE ANIMLA RIGHT'S PEOPLE THINK OF THE SOCIETY FOR THE BLIND STAFF WHO TRAIN DOGS TO DO THINGS FOR THEIR BLIND OWNERS. WE NEED TO LOOK AT THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE.
I HAVE VISITED ZIPPOS TWICE AND LOVED THE SHOW AND ATHMOSPHERE
ANIMALS OF ALL KINDS ARE MADE TO DO TRICKS WHAT DO THE ANIMLA RIGHT'S PEOPLE THINK OF THE SOCIETY FOR THE BLIND STAFF WHO TRAIN DOGS TO DO THINGS FOR THEIR BLIND OWNERS. WE NEED TO LOOK AT THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE.
I HAVE VISITED ZIPPOS TWICE AND LOVED THE SHOW AND ATHMOSPHERE
sally, london says...
9:50pm Tue 15 Jan 08
John wrote:Took your time finding this site then.
Thought that you circus folks may want to see this. Found it on another web site. http://www.veggies.org.uk/nar/circus/circustat.htm Forwarned is forarmed.
Not exactly quick of the mark are you?
sally, london says...
10:06pm Tue 15 Jan 08
Martin "Zippo" Burton wrote:Dear Martin.
Am a bit out of sync with this post. Afraid as I have to be up early (to look after circus animals?) I go to bed early so missed many late night posts. Anyway I refer to the post from Roger Yates, Wales on 12:49am today. The photo of Animal Rights protesters at the top of this article was not take at Blackheath. I was there and saw the protestors. This was not taken outside Zippos at Blackheath. Maybe it was set up just for the newspaper? On a number of occasions the protestors at Blackheath engaged in shouting sessions with members of the public, and on two occasions children of adults who had been shouted at came into the circus crying. So lets be clear about this peaceful protest. It may not have been a violent protest at Blackheath, but neither was it peaceful!
It was only a few years ago that the R.S.P.C.A.and other animal welfare organisations personally informed you of their findings.
That there needed to be a vast improvement on stabling for the horses and that they were also under the immpesion that the horses were suffering at the hands of negligant trainers.
For an example there were concerns raised that the horses were suffering from mental cruelty.
You also seem to be freely inviting the public to view the circus if complaints are made by themselves.
Surely this was count as a health and safety issue.
The R.S.P.C.A. does not as you have stated before back up your circus.
If one inspector was there to view any animal and stated that they did find your circus in a good standard it does not give you the right to state that the R.S.P.C.A. backs you fully.
I think if you were to actually contact them yourself you will find it it quite the opposite.
Also Born Free Foundation.
You were given advice in the concerns that was raised in regards to the stabling of horses as their accomodation was inadequate.
What you should know by now is that BFF is an animal welfare charity who totally oposses any animal being used in circuses,why else are they called BORN FREE.
What i think you should come to understand is that day by day the fight for animal rights is getting stronger.
And what a wonderful circus you must have if you rely on animals to entertain the public.
Are your Human performers not up to scratch?
Or is it just the case of they needed to boost their egos just that little bit more,by showing the public how much of control freaks they really are?
If you worry about being targeted as you have already stated then shut your circus,or can it only survive with animals.
You are telling to many lies to the public and you will be caught out and that will be sooner rather than later.
Tim, Cambridge says...
6:45pm Sun 3 Feb 08
Animal rights? Never mind speciesism, that is the least of our worries. Taxonomicism; that is what we should be worring about. Did you know that every day millions of animals are thoughlessly slaughtered in order to satisfy the cruel base urges of vegetarians and vegans? Think of the poor caterpillars murdered so that cruel vegetarians can enjoy a healthy crop of spinach plants. Spare a thought for the poor garden snails mercilessly deprived of a deserved crop of cabbages by any number of humanist means.
Why is it that so-called animal rights activists are completely and unashamedly biased towards specific taxa (biological groupings) of animals, and completely against others? Where is the line drawn at where we should stop exploiting species and decide to treat them as privileged equals? Sentience? Slugs feel pain too! The distinction used by animal rights activists is certainly not based upon any known classification of 'animals'. Insects are animals too, as are worms (those microscopic and visible to humans), slugs, spiders, and of course the fluffy/feathered/cut
e things that get all the attention. My advice: eliminate all plant products from your diet; they are invariably produced at the detriment of animals.
The answer? Eat dust.
Ah, sorry, what about the poor dust mites? You cruel cruel people.
Why is it that so-called animal rights activists are completely and unashamedly biased towards specific taxa (biological groupings) of animals, and completely against others? Where is the line drawn at where we should stop exploiting species and decide to treat them as privileged equals? Sentience? Slugs feel pain too! The distinction used by animal rights activists is certainly not based upon any known classification of 'animals'. Insects are animals too, as are worms (those microscopic and visible to humans), slugs, spiders, and of course the fluffy/feathered/cut
e things that get all the attention. My advice: eliminate all plant products from your diet; they are invariably produced at the detriment of animals.
The answer? Eat dust.
Ah, sorry, what about the poor dust mites? You cruel cruel people.
rebecca, hertfordshire says...
9:32am Wed 26 Mar 08
Are we a country that holds predominantly Christian values or not?
Animal-friendly Christian thoughts
Here are some of the animal-friendly ideas that modern Christians use when thinking about animals:
The Bible shows that God made his covenant with animals as well as human beings
Human and non-human animals have the same origin in God
St. Francis of Assisi said that animals "had the same source as himself"
In God's ideal world human beings live in harmony with animals
The Garden of Eden, in which human beings lived in peace and harmony with animals, demonstrates God's ideal world, and the state of affairs that human beings should work towards
The prophet Isaiah describes the Kingdom of Heaven as a place where animals and human beings live together in peace
God has the right to have everything he created treated respectfully - wronging animals is wronging God
God is not indifferent to anything in his creation
The example of a loving creator God should lead human beings to act lovingly towards animals
Inflicting pain on any living creature is incompatible with living in a Christ-like way
Animals are weak compared to us - Christ tells us to be kind to them
Jesus told human beings to be kind to the weak and helpless
In comparison to human beings, animals are often weak and helpless
Christians should therefore show compassion to animals
To love those who cannot love you in the same way is a unique way of acting with generous love.
"If you love them that love you, what reward have you?"
It is a great good to take responsibility for the welfare of others, including animals
Since an animal's natural life is a gift from God, it follows that God's right is violated when the natural life of his creatures is perverted.
Andrew Linzey, Christianity and the Rights of Animals
Animal-friendly Christian thoughts
Here are some of the animal-friendly ideas that modern Christians use when thinking about animals:
The Bible shows that God made his covenant with animals as well as human beings
Human and non-human animals have the same origin in God
St. Francis of Assisi said that animals "had the same source as himself"
In God's ideal world human beings live in harmony with animals
The Garden of Eden, in which human beings lived in peace and harmony with animals, demonstrates God's ideal world, and the state of affairs that human beings should work towards
The prophet Isaiah describes the Kingdom of Heaven as a place where animals and human beings live together in peace
God has the right to have everything he created treated respectfully - wronging animals is wronging God
God is not indifferent to anything in his creation
The example of a loving creator God should lead human beings to act lovingly towards animals
Inflicting pain on any living creature is incompatible with living in a Christ-like way
Animals are weak compared to us - Christ tells us to be kind to them
Jesus told human beings to be kind to the weak and helpless
In comparison to human beings, animals are often weak and helpless
Christians should therefore show compassion to animals
To love those who cannot love you in the same way is a unique way of acting with generous love.
"If you love them that love you, what reward have you?"
It is a great good to take responsibility for the welfare of others, including animals
Since an animal's natural life is a gift from God, it follows that God's right is violated when the natural life of his creatures is perverted.
Andrew Linzey, Christianity and the Rights of Animals
rebecca, herts says...
9:35am Wed 26 Mar 08
quoteThe animal rights answer to whether zoos are thical or not:
It is wrong if animals have rights because:
it treats the animal as a means to achieve some human end
it fails to treat animals with the respect they deserve
it violates the animal's right to live in freedom
The animal welfare answer
From the welfare point of view it is wrong to keep an animal in a zoo if the animal has a less pleasant life than it would have outside the zoo.
Reasons why people think keeping animals in zoos is bad for their welfare:
the animal is deprived of its natural habitat
the animal may not have enough room
the animal is deprived of its natural social structure and companionship
the animal is forced into close proximity with other species and human beings which may be unnatural for it
the animal may become bored, depressed and institutionalised
animals bred in zoos may become imprinted on human beings rather than members of their own species - this prevents them fully experiencing their true identity
although animals may live longer lives in zoos than in the wild, they may experience a lower quality of life
There is more to treating animals in an appropriate way than keeping them healthy: It's possible (and used to be common) for zoos to keep animals in perfect physical shape, but in conditions that cause the animals to display serious behavioural problems.
rebecca, herts says...
9:49am Wed 26 Mar 08
Cirque de Soleil seems to be a fantastic show, where I believe no animals are used?
People that perform in circuses, do so out of choice, they are not coerced into it, or forced to undertake activities that are unatural to them. Animals on the other hand, have no choice in the matter.
There will always be conflicting views as to whether animals performing in circuses is acceptable? And there will always be people who have been to Zippos, who have witnessed what they descibe as good practice and humane treatment of animals. Of course, circuses will not wish to have their dirty linen aired in public would they? Every attempt will be made to ensure that what the public see will appease those of us that are curious or have any doubts about the use of animals in circuses.
I have to say that I had a friend who went undercover and worked in a circus for a week. His experience was not great, and it provided me with enough doubts in respect of circuses and cruelty to animals. Interestingly enough, when he was found out, he had to make a quick escape otherwise he was going to be subjected to a beating?? And that's the treatment given to a human? Again, doesn't a lot of this boil down to the image that is projected to the public by circuses?
My advise is, avoid circuses. There's far better forms of entertainment that you can take your family to. Circuses need to move with the times. The public love to watch clowns and acrobats Give us more of that and leave animals out of the madness of circuses.
People that perform in circuses, do so out of choice, they are not coerced into it, or forced to undertake activities that are unatural to them. Animals on the other hand, have no choice in the matter.
There will always be conflicting views as to whether animals performing in circuses is acceptable? And there will always be people who have been to Zippos, who have witnessed what they descibe as good practice and humane treatment of animals. Of course, circuses will not wish to have their dirty linen aired in public would they? Every attempt will be made to ensure that what the public see will appease those of us that are curious or have any doubts about the use of animals in circuses.
I have to say that I had a friend who went undercover and worked in a circus for a week. His experience was not great, and it provided me with enough doubts in respect of circuses and cruelty to animals. Interestingly enough, when he was found out, he had to make a quick escape otherwise he was going to be subjected to a beating?? And that's the treatment given to a human? Again, doesn't a lot of this boil down to the image that is projected to the public by circuses?
My advise is, avoid circuses. There's far better forms of entertainment that you can take your family to. Circuses need to move with the times. The public love to watch clowns and acrobats Give us more of that and leave animals out of the madness of circuses.
rebecca, herts says...
10:07am Wed 26 Mar 08
Think about the origins of the word origin of the word "circus". In ancient Rome, the circus was where they threw people to the lions for popular entertainment.
This circus also revolves around violent death.
has much changed?
Ingo, says...
10:31pm Wed 2 Apr 08
Rebecca, what ARE you talking about? Which violent deaths have you witnessed in the Circus? And for your info: Cirque du Soleil have recently commissioned a questionnaire asking the public if they would like to see animals in a Cirque du Soleil Production. They intend to have animal performances in Vegas. An animals right to freedom? What freedom? There IS no natural habitat left for most of these animals anyway. The horses at Zippos and most animals in other Circusses (but not all I agree) enjoy a stimulating, varied, long and healthy life. Now excuse me - I'm off to eat a Hamburger wearing my leather shoes whilst watching a traditional Circus - whilst i'm still allowed.
rebecca, herts says...
5:19pm Sat 5 Apr 08
In response to Ingo's remarks. Why do some people see this as some kind of attack upon their civil liberties. I'm not arguing about you rights to do the things that you wish to do with your life. this is not an argument anout your right to eaty meat, wear leather etc. The pro circus fans always manage to turn this argument around with some non sensicle argument about their right. This is about the rights of animals, and if they have any??
And thank you for pointing out about Cirque du Soleil...clearly i was misled about their approach to circuses.
And thank you for pointing out about Cirque du Soleil...clearly i was misled about their approach to circuses.
Lulu, MIdlands says...
5:27pm Tue 15 Apr 08
Jodie wrote:Jodie Do you have any idea how many thousands and thousands of animal rights people would be in prison worldwide if they were all violent as is often implied by the scaremongering press? Use your head a bit.. but then conviction always has been its strongest when knowledge is at its very weakest. The ignorant and ill informed comments on here confirm that conclusively.. such nonsense has been said about animal rights.. Please gen up before you speak out, you make yorselves sound silly.
Sorry replied on my brothers e mail etc. the above post was from me Jodie. we are both on the same computer. We both have looked at your picture above and yes it looks very serene and calm, but who took the picture? you. And if it was the papers photographer anyone can behave in front of a camera. And by the looks of it it was either before the performance or during when there would be no-one around. You are like a magician! only let people see what you want them to see.
Lulu, Midlands says...
5:47pm Tue 15 Apr 08
Lulu wrote:After reading it I would like to correct my post... Although in my opinion some press do seem to scaremonger on AR violence I meant that it is actually some of their readers that conclude that all animal rights advocates are violent. I did not mean to imply that the press stated that all Animal Rights are violent.
Jodie wrote:Jodie Do you have any idea how many thousands and thousands of animal rights people would be in prison worldwide if they were all violent as is often implied by the scaremongering press? Use your head a bit.. but then conviction always has been its strongest when knowledge is at its very weakest. The ignorant and ill informed comments on here confirm that conclusively.. such nonsense has been said about animal rights.. Please gen up before you speak out, you make yorselves sound silly.
Sorry replied on my brothers e mail etc. the above post was from me Jodie. we are both on the same computer. We both have looked at your picture above and yes it looks very serene and calm, but who took the picture? you. And if it was the papers photographer anyone can behave in front of a camera. And by the looks of it it was either before the performance or during when there would be no-one around. You are like a magician! only let people see what you want them to see.
Lulu, Midlands says...
6:12pm Tue 15 Apr 08
http://www.captivean
imals.org/news/2008/
lacey.html
This is a BBC radio interview with circus owner Martin Lacey who gets nasty to the person interviewing him.
imals.org/news/2008/
lacey.html
This is a BBC radio interview with circus owner Martin Lacey who gets nasty to the person interviewing him.
jamjams123, dumbarton says...
9:59pm Fri 11 Jul 08
after just being back from the zippos circus i can say from my prespective that the horses and ponys are happy and cheerful there is no cruelty or neglect :D
they are performing in a show and by the looks of it enjoy it very much
well done to all of zippo circus
they are performing in a show and by the looks of it enjoy it very much
well done to all of zippo circus
Lisa, says...
9:56pm Wed 16 Jul 08
I don't friggin care if they are treated well (better than multi billion stables), the fact is ANIMALS DO NOT BELONG IN CIRCUSES! how would you like it being forced to do something you are not naturally meant to do. it does need to be stopped, there plenty of non animal circuses that are very popular and earn lots of money from acts from humans. go to them and stop paying for something that isn't right!
Animal rights activists protest against the circus
In this section
- WOOLWICH: Man guilty of David Cooper murder
- PETROL PRICES: Share cheap fuel locations
- DISCUSS: Wheelclamping under fire - what are your experiences?
- CRAYFORD & WOOLWICH: Teenager jailed for stranger rape
- CATFORD: Residents fuming over 'ugly' phone mast
- LEWISHAM: Quaggy Carnival fills streets with colour
- SHAKILUS TOWNSEND: Seven guilty of honey trap murder
- SHAKILUS TOWNSEND: Mum speaks after killers found guilty
- WOOLWICH: Teenager claims he killed David Cooper in self-defence
- CHARLTON: Football club in fresh takeover link
Sponsored Links
When news happens – email newsdesk, call 01689 885703 or text keyword NEWS SHOPPER along with your news, pictures and videos to 80360.
Local Advertisers
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Andrew Coates, Manchester says...
12:05pm Wed 18 Apr 07