Peckham Rye Zippos Circus & Protest

[*Bob*]

Is there an ongoing protest regarding the treatment of the parents?

I mean I'm not anti-budgerigars per se, but there's only so much of them sliding down a small pole accompanied by the sound of a comedy whistle - that a man can take.

[Jessie]

Saffron, I wasn't protesting the circus, I don't support the protest, but really I think the police presence was extreme. There are children in London much more vulnerable than those attending a circus with some animal rights protesters voicing their opposition (what do you expect them to do to the children??). And thanks, I know all about which charities I may or may not want to support (human rights, and yes, thanks, I know how to support them).

[red devil]

Good to know that Norman 'budgie smuggler' Barrett is still going strong...

http://www.jonterstud.com/norman%20barrett%20mbe%20004.jpg

''Joey, that's not your cuttlefish bone you're pecking at!''

[DJKillaQueen]

H is right regarding the types of banners these protestors use. Two years ago when I was encountered them, they had pictures of clearly abused tigers on their placards. Totally irrelevant to the circus.

[Chippy Minton]

silverfox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Thanks for keeping count for me Chippy. maybe we

> should both get a life

Haha...yes indeed :)

*the internet is not real life* ;-)

[Tom Micklewright]

Huggie - where have you been hiding. I have truly missed your imput.

'Thomas Micklewright' account doesnt work any more, I emailed the admin, but no reply. So I created 'Tom Micklewright'. Im hardly trying to hide my past posts. Im very open about the Dulwich Vegan and Veggie Society, campaigning against Foie Gras, always happy to chat to people etc. tweet me at @DulwichVeganSoc

I'm thinking next of doing a campaign against the use of factory farmed animals used by shops like Favourite Chicken and Morleys and promoting meat free days in Dulwich (tackling obesity rates & damage to environment etc). I look forward to your review of that later!

Tom

ps.Love the use of the word 'subterfuge'. You make me sound like a mastermind. I do hope to meet all you EDF people one day!

[DaveR]

I prefer the word 'disingenuous'

You say that you will be promoting meat-free days and you cite "tackling obesity rates and damage to the environment', but these are not your real concerns - they are a vehicle for your animal rights agenda, which includes, for example, opposition to 'captive animals' for any purpose (see your previous posts on this thread). By implication, you would oppose any sport where animals are involved and presumably the keeping of pets? Conversely, you would oppose any initiative that proposed 'tackling obesity rates' but nevertheless countenanced the eating of meat?

Tom, just admit it. You are about as extreme as it is possible to get on the animal rights spectrum and that will both determine your position and be your primary concern whatever the purported issue. If you did this up front, people would know who they are dealing with. And that's exactly why you don't.

[Huguenot]

It's that claim that his motivation is tackling obesity rates that I find incredulous.

It's a bare-faced lie.

It's that kind of behaviour that marks Micklewright out as a silly little boy whose parents let him get away with lying so many times he actually thought he was good at it. Hardly a mastermind, more a child that never grew out of the manipulative phase.

[pommie]

i dont believe any animals should be used in any circus!!

[Loz]

I believe that animals should be used in circuses!!

[KidKruger]

animals all the way for me, including as food and rugs.

[Loz]

Especially cats. Cat rugs for all.

[Sazzle30]

Check out the Moscow cat theatre on you tube - a cat circus. Hats off to anyone who can make cats do tricks. Mine wouldn't even go through the cat flap unless you held it open for them

[-Heinz-]

In the food chain, horses and goats are prey to animals with eyes on the front of their heads...so I suppose living without

the fear of being eaten would be a good enough reason for them to feel as close to happiness as it exists in their minds.

On top of that, not being overworked and fed appropriatly, one would be forgiven for thinking that these creatures, if they

could voice an opinion, would tell those animal-rights protesters where to go.

[Sue]

I recently went to a flea circus at a festival.

I was devastated to realise that they don't actually use real fleas.

For very many years I have been labouring under the delusion that it was actually fleas I saw walking a tightrope and riding a bicyle when I was about five :(

But hey, at least no cruelty to fleas involved!

[Tom Micklewright]

Interestingly, (whether you choose to believe it or not) 'animal rights' are in third place for my reasons for being vegan and encouraging others to think about like without using animal products. Although I find the abuse of animals repulsive, my biggest concerns are the 1) destruction of the environment land / sea / energy and the 2) damaging of human health that come with our western view of animal product consumption. A small amount of research will tell you these are big issues, that even the EU and UN are starting to grapple with.

Foie Gras and Circuses, (that have featured and received a great post response on EDF) aren't my main concerns. Perhaps on the EDF I should have simply focused on the promotion of meat free days. However, I focused on that outside the EDF (and received a positive response from schools, churches, local businesses, MPs and Councillors.

I find it perplexing that people take shots at me, simply for getting involved in the community and trying tackle issues that I think are important.

ps. If they don't use fleas - what do they use?

[Huguenot]

I'm sorry Thomas, but that's completely at odds with everything you've done and said on here.

This is the first time you have ever mentioned any interest in obesity, and whilst you've sometimes touched on environmental issues it has never been your primary goal.

Foie Gras has nothing to do with either of those issues, and neither does bullshit about tortured circus animals.

How many of your talks at the Dulwich Vegan Society have been about obesity? None? How many about animal cruelty? All?

People don't take shots at you for getting involved in the community and tackling issues, they take shots at you because you're disingenuous and tell porkies.

They take shots at you because you misrepresent issues and practices to further your own goals.

They take shots at you because when you can't persuade people to stop eating Foie Gras by open debate you go behind their backs and harass restaurants to try and prevent people gaining access.

If you want to win respect stop lying to people, stop trying to manipulate people, and stop trying to force people to do your thing when you can't persuade them.

[Moos]

Mmm, porkie pies.

[katanita]

They used to use fleas! See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfQ36aXMSfY. But now it's just trickery, mechanical devices and so on. Cat fleas too small to work with, and human fleas no longer available (thank goodness).

[Saffron]

Jessie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Saffron, I wasn't protesting the circus, I don't

> support the protest, but really I think the police

> presence was extreme. There are children in London

> much more vulnerable than those attending a circus

> with some animal rights protesters voicing their

> opposition

But protesters were in fact allowed to voice their opposition! Therefore, the right to protest remains intact. It is simply the manner in which they are allowed to protest (ie no banners) that was being considered. Do children not deserve a modicum of consideration in this environment?

> (what do you expect them to do to the

> children??).

If banners etc contained graphic/violent or otherwise inappropriate material, it would have the potential to be disturbing to children. Police perhaps have a duty of care in this case to see that children are not exposed to such material, no? In which case, it's not their job to judge what is such, merely to make a blanket ban on banners. Thus allowing the police to conduct their observation of the protest w/o undue involvement.

If you disagree, that's fine. Opinions and entitlement etc. I was just proposing a possible explanation for additional police consideration. There may indeed be any number of reasons why police presence and control was such.

Has anyone actually asked the Police Dept why their policy is such?

(And, Jessie, the additional info at the bottom of my previous post re charities was general info, not aimed at you personally. It was not my intention to slight you or anyone else by providing information. x)

[Jessie]

Fair enough, all good points. I was brought up going to protest after protest, but you're right, never with graphic images of animals in distress (not animal rights marches btw).

[-Heinz-]

Tom Micklewright Wrote

> the implication that

> animals can be manipulated for our amusement

> despite the animal gaining no benefit from the

> practice.

The benefits an animal gets from being tamed, especially when that animal is prey in the natural order of the food chain is : to not be constantly in fear of being eaten alive by predators, to be fed, watered and looked after for the simple reason that it is a valuable commodity to the tamer....And yes I have eaten horse and were it available in this country would gladly have it again since it is very lean,iron rich and rather good.

[James Barber]

Hi Saffron,

I sympathise with your view the Police should try and avoid young children seeing disturbing images - but the logical extension is they should ensure newspapers, magazines, etc shouldnt be openly displayed as they sometimes having shocking images. As a parent in such circumstances I would ensure my kids were looking the other way OR explain my understanding of the context. Much better than accepting an occurence of pseudo Police stateism.

Going to the orignal post - it does sound over zealous policing.

Hi Hugenuot,

Tom has talked about environment and health concerns when promoting meat free days to me. He's never mentioned animal welfare.

[DaveR]

"Tom has talked about environment and health concerns when promoting meat free days to me. He's never mentioned animal welfare."

James, you miss the point. All that means is that he is consistently disingenuous. The better question is, has he ever suggested any way of addressing environmental or health concerns other than by trying to persuade people not to eat meat?

Regardless of the motives for Tom's opposition to the eating of meat, it is that opposition that informs eveything he does (at least insofar as he reveals it on here - maybe in his private time he plays the glockenspiel and collects vintage hair curlers).

[Saffron]

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hi Saffron,

> I sympathise with your view the Police should try

> and avoid young children seeing disturbing images

> - but the logical extension is they should ensure

> newspapers, magazines, etc shouldnt be openly

> displayed as they sometimes having shocking

> images.

That's not necessarily the logical extension, b/c newpapers etc are already controlled in their content by other governing boards. In other words, their content is already filtered/reviewed by other agencies, so that's not w/in the police remit and therefore is not a logical extension of my suggestion.