If this is true it's disgraceful. So what if it was made in a jungle where there are animals to eat. Actaully it's made in a jungle ITV have made into a TV studio, which is aired to millions of people.
I think ITV and the people concerned should be sued for cruelty to animals even if people call rats pests.
I'm sad they're only concerned for the rat - at least it was killed before it was eaten unlike the other stuff this vile programme forces people to eat.
The show is plastic TV which is made from a built studio in a jungle with camera filming live footage. I think the show should be scrapped and ITV save money and produce and make real programmes.
The produce and Gino who slaughtered this poor animal should be sued for the outrages TV rating exercise.
The Celebs are being watched all the time, Why didn't the producers speak to them and tell them to stop.. because it made something to watch. ITV should pay for the defence of these two, you can't give them live insects to eat and then complain when they kill another creature in order to eat it when you've stood by and watch them do it.
IAC has always had animal cruelty issues and a lot of them are subjective, but the attitude that insects and grubs (no matter how much I dislike them) are fair game to be eaten alive for 'entertainment' while a rat (equally disliked) can't be killed and eaten for food is beyond me. All the animal tasks should be stopped imo.
I personally think that ITV would be more difficult for the RSPCA to take on (regarding all animal rights issues) than Gino and Stuart re: their rat.
if this is true its a load of bollocks. surely if they were not allowed to do this the producers would have stepped in at the time and told them so?!?!? and there was me thinking that the RSPCA spent their time helping domestic animals such as dogs. timewasters!
Hang on a second what's the difference - just because orphaned/injured seals are cute and cuddly and a lot of people don't like rats? I hate I'm a Celeb for the very reason that it is cruel to animals and insects for the sake of entertainment. IMHO it is long overdue for everyone involved to be held accountable for the horrible things that have been done. Phew glad I got that of my chest!
Oh dear. I'm not sure where to start. You might be glad you got it off your chest, but you are missing the point somewhat.
IMO, most people complaining about the rat are actually more annoyed about the use of animals in general, which you seem to confirm.
I happen to like rats. I don't dislike them, and think they are quite cute. My views on what is cruel are not coloured by my views on what is cute and cuddly.
However, I happen to think that rescuing seals from a slow and miserable death from injury, infections, disease and starvation is a more useful thing for an animal cruelty charity to do than to make international headlines about the swift death of a rat for food.
IMO, there was a hell of a lot less cruelty involved in killing the rat for food than there would be in ignoring the "cute and fluffy" seals.
I'm uncomfortable with a number of the things that happen on the show regarding animals, but I don't see any evidence, based on actual cruelty levels, that the killing of a rat merits a court case.
The issue as to whether or not the animals are being subjected to cruelty for the sake of entertainment is pertinent, but Gino is a chef. Chefs have a habit of killing food to eat whether or not there are cameras there. Gino and Stuart were both hungry and planned to eat the rat.
If anyone is to be pursued, it should be the show producers, but based on what I've seen of them so far, the people at the local RSPCA seem to be equally guilty of playing to the media as the people who make the show.
If this is true it's disgraceful. So what if it was made in a jungle where there are animals to eat. Actaully it's made in a jungle ITV have made into a TV studio, which is aired to millions of people.
I think ITV and the people concerned should be sued for cruelty to animals even if people call rats pests.
They still have a heart.
Two words.................................
plague and bubonic.
However if these anal idiots in the RSPCA in New South Wales are so concerned, there's millions of the little sods here in the UK.
I can't remember the guys name but there is show following a so called survival expert (not Ray Mears). This guy eats live animals for effect, he is the one who torments dangerous snakes etc to film them spitting and retaliating. Why isn't that cruelty and against the law? I am sure Ray Mears has killed animals on his shows too. Is it because IAAC is entertainment and the others go out as a factual? Not really a lot of difference
The producers should take the rap for this. They are the ones who should know the laws and protect their subjects they are filming from getting into situations like this.
The producers should step in and defend the two of them, and make sure that they are not charged...they didn't know that they were not supposed to kill the rat. :mad:
Then it's the producers who should be charged. They were responsible for the celebs and presumably had not told them they weren't to kill and eat anything. And if they were the ones who planted it in the camp, they are the ones responsible for its welfare.
How would they RSPCA prove it was a "pet" rat brought in by the show though?????
It's not that difficult. Any vet or RSPCA inspector used to dealing with rodents can tell the difference on sight.
The rats used in the trials are bred as pets. They couldn't possibly use wild/sewer rats. The celebrity would be ripped to shreds with that many of them there.
Fancy (pet) rats have different temperaments through generations of being bred as pets. They are welcoming of human contact - the most friendly of rodents, far more than gerbils or hamsters, and the most intelligent.
If the rat was a fancy rat (and judging by the look of it, it was) they would have had no trouble catching it, handling it and killing it.
I get the feeling that this is some sort of publicity stunt by the RCPCA in New South Wales.
The Chief Inspector I listened to on radio this morning said that the legislation being used was to prevent the killing of an animal (insects are not covered) as part of a broadcast (TV/Movie).
Now, unless all those kangaroos, crocodiles etc, who have over the various series donated their balls and penises, just happened to die of natural causes, why the hell have they said hee-haw until now?
I can't remember the guys name but there is show following a so called survival expert (not Ray Mears). This guy eats live animals for effect, he is the one who torments dangerous snakes etc to film them spitting and retaliating. Why isn't that cruelty and against the law? I am sure Ray Mears has killed animals on his shows too. Is it because IAAC is entertainment and the others go out as a factual? Not really a lot of difference
It could be that someone had put in a formal complaint about Gino killing the rat whereas no one had complained about Ray Mears.
I dont know why they waited 2 weeks to do anything about it. ITV show or not, if you break the law, as the papers state they have, then they something should have been done at the time
Oh dear. I'm not sure where to start. You might be glad you got it off your chest, but you are missing the point somewhat.
IMO, most people complaining about the rat are actually more annoyed about the use of animals in general, which you seem to confirm.
I happen to like rats. I don't dislike them, and think they are quite cute. My views on what is cruel are not coloured by my views on what is cute and cuddly.
However, I happen to think that rescuing seals from a slow and miserable death from injury, infections, disease and starvation is a more useful thing for an animal cruelty charity to do than to make international headlines about the swift death of a rat for food.
IMO, there was a hell of a lot less cruelty involved in killing the rat for food than there would be in ignoring the "cute and fluffy" seals.
I'm uncomfortable with a number of the things that happen on the show regarding animals, but I don't see any evidence, based on actual cruelty levels, that the killing of a rat merits a court case.
The issue as to whether or not the animals are being subjected to cruelty for the sake of entertainment is pertinent, but Gino is a chef. Chefs have a habit of killing food to eat whether or not there are cameras there. Gino and Stuart were both hungry and planned to eat the rat.
If anyone is to be pursued, it should be the show producers, but based on what I've seen of them so far, the people at the local RSPCA seem to be equally guilty of playing to the media as the people who make the show.
You've got me a bit wrong here - never did I say we should ignore the seals - I love seals lol- I just place equal importance on these issues. The manner that the rat was killed is what bothers me the most, and poor insects getting stamped, or frogs and baby crocs getting battered by celebs flinging them out the way,and crocs having their mouths tied up. I actually love rats - and I'm not joking I've kept them as pets for a long time so when I see something like this I react in much the same way as if a conventional pet lover would if they had killed a dog or cat. I think we actually agree with each other but are expressing ourselves in different ways!
What I don't get is why Gino and Stu are held more liable than the producers . What was their brief? In previous episodes, weren't they told they could eat anything they caught in the jungle?
Erm... didn't Gino have to eat live cockroaches, worms, and a witchety grub?
Now, I know you wouldn't neccessarily have a cockroach as a pet, but surely that's exactly the same?
The manner that the rat was killed is what bothers me the most, and poor insects getting stamped, or frogs and baby crocs getting battered by celebs flinging them out the way,and crocs having their mouths tied up.[/QUOTE]
Comments
I think ITV and the people concerned should be sued for cruelty to animals even if people call rats pests.
They still have a heart.
Agreed
The produce and Gino who slaughtered this poor animal should be sued for the outrages TV rating exercise.
IAC has always had animal cruelty issues and a lot of them are subjective, but the attitude that insects and grubs (no matter how much I dislike them) are fair game to be eaten alive for 'entertainment' while a rat (equally disliked) can't be killed and eaten for food is beyond me. All the animal tasks should be stopped imo.
I personally think that ITV would be more difficult for the RSPCA to take on (regarding all animal rights issues) than Gino and Stuart re: their rat.
Oh dear. I'm not sure where to start. You might be glad you got it off your chest, but you are missing the point somewhat.
IMO, most people complaining about the rat are actually more annoyed about the use of animals in general, which you seem to confirm.
I happen to like rats. I don't dislike them, and think they are quite cute. My views on what is cruel are not coloured by my views on what is cute and cuddly.
However, I happen to think that rescuing seals from a slow and miserable death from injury, infections, disease and starvation is a more useful thing for an animal cruelty charity to do than to make international headlines about the swift death of a rat for food.
IMO, there was a hell of a lot less cruelty involved in killing the rat for food than there would be in ignoring the "cute and fluffy" seals.
I'm uncomfortable with a number of the things that happen on the show regarding animals, but I don't see any evidence, based on actual cruelty levels, that the killing of a rat merits a court case.
The issue as to whether or not the animals are being subjected to cruelty for the sake of entertainment is pertinent, but Gino is a chef. Chefs have a habit of killing food to eat whether or not there are cameras there. Gino and Stuart were both hungry and planned to eat the rat.
If anyone is to be pursued, it should be the show producers, but based on what I've seen of them so far, the people at the local RSPCA seem to be equally guilty of playing to the media as the people who make the show.
Ermm ... care to explain the above statement when the OP was only informing us of what is going on
Really, I don't understand why you are telling the OP to grow up
Please explain .... ta
Two words.................................
plague and bubonic.
However if these anal idiots in the RSPCA in New South Wales are so concerned, there's millions of the little sods here in the UK.
They're more than welcome to them.
Absolutely.
How many more of the rats are tame?
It's not that difficult. Any vet or RSPCA inspector used to dealing with rodents can tell the difference on sight.
The rats used in the trials are bred as pets. They couldn't possibly use wild/sewer rats. The celebrity would be ripped to shreds with that many of them there.
Fancy (pet) rats have different temperaments through generations of being bred as pets. They are welcoming of human contact - the most friendly of rodents, far more than gerbils or hamsters, and the most intelligent.
If the rat was a fancy rat (and judging by the look of it, it was) they would have had no trouble catching it, handling it and killing it.
The Chief Inspector I listened to on radio this morning said that the legislation being used was to prevent the killing of an animal (insects are not covered) as part of a broadcast (TV/Movie).
Now, unless all those kangaroos, crocodiles etc, who have over the various series donated their balls and penises, just happened to die of natural causes, why the hell have they said hee-haw until now?
It could be that someone had put in a formal complaint about Gino killing the rat whereas no one had complained about Ray Mears.
You've got me a bit wrong here - never did I say we should ignore the seals - I love seals lol- I just place equal importance on these issues. The manner that the rat was killed is what bothers me the most, and poor insects getting stamped, or frogs and baby crocs getting battered by celebs flinging them out the way,and crocs having their mouths tied up. I actually love rats - and I'm not joking I've kept them as pets for a long time so when I see something like this I react in much the same way as if a conventional pet lover would if they had killed a dog or cat. I think we actually agree with each other but are expressing ourselves in different ways!
this has to be truly the most ridiculous thing i have heard in a long time
It's possbibly just a publicity stunt by ITV. I smell a rat!:D
Now, I know you wouldn't neccessarily have a cockroach as a pet, but surely that's exactly the same?