The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has ordered People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) not to re-run a billboard campaign featuring Steven Barker, the man who tortured 17-month-old Peter Connelly and was subsequently found guilty of "causing or allowing" the infant's death. PETA's Steven Barker poster The …
Is this the same...
Is this the same PETA that was putted by Penn and Tellers Bulls**t program for having an extremely large freezer that was used to store the bodies of animals that it put to sleep? Someone should take a permanent sleeping draught to PETA, is my opinion.
Mine's the one with the word, "hypocrite," on the back.
You got it
What's even more hypocritical is they were killing animals they "rescued" while simultaneously campaigning against other organisations that did exactly the same thing.
PETA fail at ethics.
Report cruelty to animals immediately?
Why, what're the going to do?
Do PETA imagine some sort of animal court, a la Jungle Book?
As entertaining (and totally darn cute!) as that would be, I fail to see how it stop child abuse.
There would be closer scrutiny of sadists
rather than ignoring them until they work up to humans. It is a no-brainer that most of the population nonetheless fails, being short on comprehension of what it means to behave honourably.
I think the previous poster
was playing on the word to - as in going to animals to report cases of abuse...
"The fact is that there most certainly is a link between people who abuse animals and people who go on to murder- a link that has been demonstrated in even many of the worst serial killers."
There is indeed a link - they are all people.
Other than that, it's the violence that links them - but is it really so much of a concrete link that PETA should jump on the rather overcrowded BabyP (or Baby Peter (PETA?) ) bandwagon with the rest of the two-faced idiots.
The fail here may well the the failing to not do the knee-jerk thang as requested but for the ASA to tell PETA to piss off and not contribute to the 'Kill all pedos' bollocks. In which case the ASA have done exactly what they should and protected us from the baying, blood-thirsty mob.
So how do we class the Animal Rights Extremists who seem happy to abuse people, do they then go on to abuse animals after successful misery has been inflicted on the human.
On a slightly seperate note in regards to your backing of PETA's message. A good communication that people take note of has to come from a source with a reputation that people can trust otherwise the message is effectively useless. In this case PETA being the source with a reputation that heads south more times than a flock of migrating birds means it's effectively useless, so understandably the ASA is probably doing the right thing.
Oh good grief
Yeah, everyone who displeases PETA is basically a 9/11 waiting to happen.
Dont worry I will.
The only thing I'm suprised that PETA omitted was
from the original text, that's their usual hunting ground.
"If meat is murder then murder tastes pretty damn good" to quote Dennis Leary.
Hmmm... need a rare steak icon here.
You nearly made a good point ...
... but spoiled it with the pointless rant in the fourth paragraph (though the one before was a bit spittle-flecked towards the end).
As I recall from reports previously, people are far more likely to report animal abuse than child abuse, so it tends to undermine your argument, and PETA's somewhat, anyway, but then it wouldn't make such a good rant, would it?
Is the chant for the next decade to be, "Won't somebody think of the puppies*!!"?
Re: It really shows the ASA is just another waste of public money I guess.
Minor point but its not public money.
The ASA is a self-regulatory organisation for the advertising industry. The ASA is a non-statutory organisation and so cannot interpret or enforce legislation and is not funded by the British Government, but by a levy on the advertising industry.
is such a wanker though!
I thought he was more of an asshole.
I really wish
PETA weren't such a bunch of dicks
PETA in idiocy shocker!
Much as I don't condone cruelty to animals etc that's pretty bad...
Sorry Mr. Godwin...
Adolf Hitler: Vegetarian, Racist, Genocidal Maniac!
Say what you like about Hitler - he wasn't actually a vegetarian. http://www.vegsource.com/berry/hitler.html tells you his favourite foods were squab and sausage.
Never thought I'd find myself correcting people's misconceptions about Hitler. Funny old world.
Actually he wasn't. In the 1930s Hitler enjoyed and promoted "English" country "sports" such as fox hunting and game shooting and was partial to stuffed pigeon.
Hitler a vegetarian?
I think he was mostly a vegetarian for most of his life. A moderate vegetarian, not a fanatic.
Recently they analysed some amateur silent films of Hitler and using computer analysis and skilled human lipreaders they decoded some of what he said in those films. My favourite Hitler quotation, rediscovered in this manner, was something he said about Göring, presumably while thinking that nobody would ever know about it except his girlfriend who was holding the camera: "Ich schaute über den Tisch, da wusste ich, dass wahr ist, was die Leute sagen: Dass Schweine ihr eigenes Fleisch essen." (I looked across the table and then I knew it's true what people say: pigs eat their own flesh.) It's just the kind of thing a vegetarian might say, to his girlfriend, in private, about a somewhat overweight meat-eater who enjoys hunting.
shocking or not, abusing the death of baby P or not, what PETA says is the truth. people who willfully hurt animals, will more often then not move on to something "better". if you have a kid that likes to torture animals, you could have a serious problem on your hands, psychopath anyone?
Not about the point
but the way they make it. As always Peta assume that they are right and should be alowed to do what they want. They are agrogant spoilt brats who don't know where the boundrys are.
These facts are no supprise, and there are laws in the UK against animal crulty.
im not saying
that torturing animals is OK, but I take issue with the idea that you can pre-emptively judge whether someone will become a serial killer and baby rapist by what they do as a child.
I mean don't try to tell me that you've never stood on a spider..... or killed a wasp. That qualifies according to the broad criteria of killing animals.
Most of what everyone has said so far about this (basically things like "well if he killed a gerbil my 2yr old baby is next") is groundless. Before I would even consider forming such a biased prejudiced opinion on any matter I want to see evidence, and by evidence I don't mean statistics, as 74.345% are made up on the spot, and 49.9% are below average accuracy. The evidence would also need to be specific to a person, not to generalities and prejudices.
I'm not defending (or attacking) anyone, I'm pointing out my perception of the way we are so quick to link things together like this. only today I read an especially brainless article about how internet 'addiction' (/me rolls eyes) and depression were linked.
Some remtard actually said "what we don't know is which comes first - are depressed people drawn to the internet or does the internet cause depression?" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8493149.stm)
After reading that, who can say.
I'm tired of this kind of bull. You may aswell say "What we don't know is what comes first - do people with hair breathe, or do people who breathe get hair?"
It tells you nothing other than they fact that this person had an exceptionally wide brush with 2 colours of paint to tar random people with. I mean this could qualify someone who got dumped via facebook.
After all the political correctness bullshit about discrimination, prejudice and racism, we still have people who's occupation it is to lump groups of other people together and then attach labels, and publish their findings.
I'm only sorry that I polluted my mind with this retarded crap.
Sorry for being a bit random and tangent-oriented.
It boils down to this: people are different. Grouping them together only works when you want to have an enemy to fight, or a side to be on.
We don't need a national crackdown on people who were violent towards animals in their childhood (sado-aniphiles?). It doesn't ever seem to be about morality or ethics, just one load of people ganging up on another, with some excuse in between about why the bigger group (isn't it always the bigger one doing the cracking down?) needs to crack down on the smaller group.
As soon as you get into it in detail, it turns out that nobody really fits properly into either group, because the only thing they have in common is that they don't have the thing in common that the smaller group has in common.
If anyone wants to reply and accuse me of being insensitive to children or something, please do. I'd really like to hear your thoughts on why we all need to gang up on ever increasing groups of bogeymen and judge *them* for what *they* did in *their* childhood in order to protect *our* children from *them* because *we* don't like *their* sort around here and they might be murdering baby raping paedophiles!!! ZOMG!!!!!
Again, not defending anyone. But by now I've done a little attacking :)
We claim to have progressed and become more tolerant as a society, but all we've done is traded one set of prejudices for another.
oh but it's ok to beat on PETA, *they* labeled *themselves*
/me hides from flames
The laws against animal cruelty are rarely enforced, however and it is not typically considered important by the police if someone is killing or torturing animals in an area.
Of course, being right on one topic doesn't make the Petards' advertising any less offensive.
> the idea that you can pre-emptively judge whether someone will become a serial killer and baby rapist by what they do as a child.
This is of course a PET ideA of the Left, based less on scientific fact than on the prejudice that what goes for animals also goes for people in determining their behaviour in general. Absent of course is any acknowledgement of individual choice. (Also entailed is a largely etiolated concept of rationality). Thus the Left is all too happy to take away your civil liberties because it doesn't really believe that you have any freedom to determine your own actions in the first place. Hence Herr Balls latest snooping program on kiddies eating habits, fuzzy feelings, etc, to mention just one of a tedious horde of LieBoring policies.
The really odd thing is that, despite having the conviction that human behaviour is determined, the LieBores insist on blowing billions of taxpayers money to prove themselves wrong.
What is needed is a new model of the Mind. Now that we have seen science evolve into soft science, then junk science, and finally gonzo science (c.f. melting glaciers), perhaps it will be recognized that "science" does not actually have any more useful suggestions to make.
The thing about Hitler was that he was nice to animals
This is how I see it...
Numerous studies. Right. Where are they? And what about the flip side?
One study is in this book - http://www.sussex-academic.co.uk/sa/titles/CulturalSocialStudies/Linzey.htm and actually is so bold as to examine the question as to whether people abusing animals actually diverts the abuser to actually violence towards other humans. (I know it isn't that easy, but the point has to be raised and examined.)
There is also the danger of Minority Report stuff happening here. Is an abuser of animals to also be locked up for the potential to harm humans?
PETA have a serious question to answer in what, exactly, are they trying to achieve with these adverts ... except for spreading panic. Also, as an organisation that, despite their vocalisations, actually put animals to sleep themselves and have recourse to violence against fellow humans, the balance should be taken that they have no care for the human condition and thus no morals over this advert or care for the harm they cause.
The only argument I can see for PETA running the adverts is to get people to report animal cruelty sooner ... a laudible goal, but not one that would have saved Baby P.
" Is an abuser of animals to also be locked up for the potential to harm humans?"
It would be enough if the abuser of animals was locked up for the abuse of animals.
"One study is in this book - http://www.sussex-academic.co.uk/sa/titles/CulturalSocialStudies/Linzey.htm and actually is so bold as to examine the question as to whether people abusing animals actually diverts the abuser FROM violence towards other humans. (I know it isn't that easy, but the point has to be raised and examined.)"
if all they have done is gone to a lode of bad people and asked them if they tortured animals then that dosent prove direct correlation. because if i ask those same bad people if they eat cheese then i could prove that eating cheese makes you bad. what they also need to show is the amount of not as bad people that have also done it to show that of the general public that x in 100 people tortured animals and of convicted people it is (substantially larger number than x) in 100 have tortured animals.
besides that what do peta do other than advertise and protest?
"i could prove that eating cheese makes you bad"
Surely to goodness that doesn't include Red Leicester does it?
The real point
No one is really saying that PETA is wrong. The message they are saying is that violent people are... well... violent, and that they don't limit their vilonce to a single species, be it animal or human. What is being said here is that there are other ways to get the message across and that putting up shocking posters is not always a good idea, even if they are factual. I'm sure lots of people would object to a big poster of an erect Penis with the words "THIS IS A PENIS" or "GARY GLITTER HAS ONE OF THESE" on it, however, you can't then justify this poster by saying well, it's factually correct so it should stay!
Thanks for listening.
I'm sorry but...
I'm just not clear on what the poster is supposed to achieve?
I mean it's hardly news that psycopaths are equally psycopathic to all species is it?
And there are already animal cruelty laws and most people would report someone that was torturing an animal for no reason.
So given that the poster isn't actually going save any people or animals that means it's only purpose is the exploitation of peoples grief and outrage for shameless self promotion. Surely Peta wouldn't stoop so low?
Suggestions for future campaigns:
'Fred West, cockfighting champion.'
"Idi Amin ate my (sea) kittens."
'Jack the ripper once gave a badger an indian burn.'
'The untold tragedy of the holocaust - The unmarked pet cemetaries of Poland'.
Posting anonymnously, I've been the subject of abuse by PETA, because I 'outrageously' removed unsourced (and as far as I could tell, untrue; simply the fevered imaginings of a loopy activist with a blog) accusations of theirs from a Wikipedia article.
It's totally true that if you have contempt for suffering in animals you will probably also have contempt for suffering in fellow humans.
If you enjoy pain in animals, you might well enjoy pain in humans too.
- I don't think this is always true; I can think of people suffering from religion who undoubtedly believe humans are sacrosanct while getting their kicks from hurting 'lesser' creatures.
So what does that make those PETA supporters who harassed me and emailed colleagues with an 'outing' for reverting their illiterate agenda out of an article?
Peta positively relish the chance to hurt any human they define as an enemy (real or imagined) and do their utmost to cause that person distress. Pot; meet Kettle.
If any petaphiles are reading this and don't understand; read 'Animal Farm' and reflect on the last lines.
@RegisterFail / Danny5
Sorry lads, that's a load of bull. You can link to as many studies as you like, but the fact of the matter is that PETA are just using this terrible occurrence to get advertising out of it.
And the largest piece of text on that ad states "People who are violent towards animals rarely stop there"
That is patently false. It should read "People who are violent towards animals sometimes go on to do much worse things to other people, but very rarely"
I have killed hundreds of fish, by violently hitting them on the head with a heavy object after letting them get a sharp hook stuck in their mouth and pulling them from their natural environment.
I have also shot and killed hundreds of ducks and pheasants. Sometimes you have to break their necks yourself if the shot and fall didn't kill them. That's pretty violent, wouldn't you say?
Shock horror, I even eat their corpses afterwards. Lots of my friends have done (and continue to do) the same thing, not to mention countless hunters and fishermen the world over, or even the people who murder cows so we can have cheeseburgers.
And yet, I never murdered or physically abused another person, nor did anyone I know. If PETA's statement were true, everyone who ever ate meat would be a murderer.
oh my lord!!
Your going to be hauled in front of a War Crimes tribunal for genocide soon, far too much violence.
I'm an animal rights extremist
but I'd never admit to being a member of PETA, it would be too embarassing
Hold on - don't you have to show actual loss caused by a libel to get damages for defamation? PETA should have told Barker to get fucked. I'd have contributed to their legal fund.
You think sticking a giant poster of someone in their neighbourhood with 'murderer' next to it isn't likely to result in some loss, in the court's eyes?
And my memory of the Hitler thing is that he wasn't a vegetarian initially but had to give up meat for health reasons. I might well be wrong, but that sticks in my brain as a fact...
The link is there, weather you like it or not.
PeTA is right to do what it does, when people kill, torture and eat animals for no purpose other than their own frivolity you have to use stark imagery for people to take note.
In context, A cow watching it's calf be taken away to be murdered is no different than a human loosing a child in the same way. When people get to understand this, they will see things from PeTA's perspective.
An antelope watching its calf get pulled down by a lion is no different than a human losing a child in the same way.
Sorry AC, but we are predators and we eat meat. Our teeth and digestive tract establish this fact biologically. Why do you think vegetarians and vegans have to eat "meat substitutes" like soy-based products and tofu and such like? It's because our bodies need the proteins found in meat.
And I for one take extreme exception to being compared to a baby-killer because I like eating veal. Because that's what you imply in your post. Attitudes like that are why the majority of us have such contempt for PETA and its adherents and will quite happily do such things as file complaints against your advertising just to shut you fuckers up.
I don't eat any meat or soy based products, I'm not dead. You endorse a popular misconception that people need to eat meat, they don't.
Lions hunt when they are starving, when they need to. You eat meat morning noon and night. There's a difference.
I'm not a member of PeTA, I understand their point of view, and how they going about getting the message across.
Finally, if you object to PeTA's advertising, then they, have rights to object to meat being advertised on billboards. You can't just say you don't agree with what they say, they should be banned. That's fascism.
A cow has absolutely no concept of where it's calf is going and certainly wouldn't make any high level cognitive connection between humans eating it's calf and it disappearing. There's also a 99.9% chance the majority of cows have never seen a human eat so can't connect the dots on that basis alone.
I love animals.
Especially sliced, fried and searved with onions.
I admit it; I'm an abuser.
I whip my lizard every day.. Sometimes multiple times.
Anyway, I'm with PETA on one thing. I appreciate women who don't wear fur.
Yeah, you know what I mean.
Link? Who cares?
What matters is the implication that the PETA are somehow our saviours against cruelty against animals, and by extension cruelty against children and cruelty against whatnot else. To make that point they're resorting to brandmarking tactics previously used in medieval justice. If we take a leaf from their book, then they've done worse before and have been told off before, making them repeat offenders. Modern justice is supposed to be impartial, which the PETA clearly and by own admittance are not.
Like the ACPO, PETA empathically are not the duly appointed upholders of the law to deal with that sort of thing. I would say they aren't fit for that purpose either. If you want to support animals, donate to the RSPCA, not to the deluded fundies that make up PETA.
My 2p worth...
My problem is that PETA seem to be using the death of Baby P to promote their own agenda. Sure, if more people report animal cruelty, potential human abuse may be avoided, but PETA (by their very name), care more about animal cruelty than human cruelty.
PETA - PITA
whatever... they should have left the picture of the guy off and the top line off. then it would be "educational" in content. I don't need the studies to prove it to me, I know first hand of the violence perpetrated by animal abusers (re: victim and witness on separate events). Thankfully someone intervened in my attack before it got out of control. One guy I was witness to went on to commit murder and was sentenced to life without parole. PETA only knows how to shock and awe. They have no understanding of proper. I think the billboard would be fine without the guy's mugshot and the top line about the guy. I also think that's what the ASA is getting at.
I don't like cruelty to animals either, but PITA goes too far.
Besides, there's a place for all God's creatures... right next to the mashed potatoes.
Mine's the one with the Saskatoon Steak House logo on the back.
- Geek's Guide to Britain INSIDE GCHQ: Welcome to Cheltenham's cottage industry
- 'Catastrophic failure' of 3D-printed gun in Oz Police test
- Game Theory Is the next-gen console war already One?
- BBC suspends CTO after it wastes £100m on doomed IT system
- Peak Facebook: British users lose their Liking for Zuck's ad empire