Need your thoughts for Radio London, please, about PETA's 'Baby P' poster

PETA

Pathetic Extreme Twats Association

PETA are wankers

"In PETAs eyes, someone who wears leather or tests cosmetics on animals.

The first one is perhaps a danger to other humans, for the last two that seems rather unlikely. "

I think PETA are more of a danger to that last person than that person is to other humans!

Just a thought, can we complain to the ASA about the ad?

Added to that is the question of what "animal abuse" is.

Someone who deliberately hurts animals.

Someone who neglects to feed their animals.

In PETAs eyes, someone who wears leather or tests cosmetics on animals.

The first one is perhaps a danger to other humans, for the last two that seems rather unlikely.

It's sick. PETA are vile though, and I am not surprised.

I tend to boycott brands that go for shock tactics, although PETA isn't a brand, so doesn't apply in this case.

I don't like it.

Had that man (who I wouldn't have recognised) had a conviction for animal cruelty it would in no way have stopped what happened to P.

But they have put pictures of him up, purely for shock factor, in the borough where P died.

It is exploitation of the coverage and shock generated by the baby P case. And lets face it, it has worked. We are talking about it.

I wonder how members of P's family feel about it? It leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.

PETA are idiots who's ideals are skewed and twisted so far from basic common sense that even when they have a good point to make i want to argue it.

an earlier poster said it best... the ad is good and i'd love to see an SPCA use it but from PETA it's just wrong... these are the people who claim all meat eaters are murdering scumbags, would attack me for wearing leather and want to call fish sea kittens ffs!

Its a bit of a generalisation isnt it.

It's a good point MmeG - even if most child-abusers start off with animals, is it true that those who abuse animals rarely stop there?

What does 'rarely' mean? Is it true that even half of animal abusers go on to abuse humans? (I assume we're including domestic violence or similar as well as just child abuse) For it to be true that they rarely stop there I would expect at least 3/4 of those who hurt animals to go on to hurt people and I really don't think that is true. Of course it would mkae for a much less emotive statement if they stated the truth: that animal abuse is correlated with violence towards humans.

As an advert it's rubbish because I doubt most people would know have the slightest clue who that man is unless they were told directly.

There is some evidence yes MmeG

their message... Gah!

It is utterly distasteful to use the death of a child to promote a political cause.

Aside from that basic statement, is there any evidence backing up the claim that the "average" animal abuser will move on to abusing children?

Or that child abusers tend to start by abusing animals?

There is no a clear link between the two crimes.

There have been cases of child abuse where the perperator has treated their pets very well but their children terribly.

I expected to dislike it when I clicked but actually I think it strikes a good note.
I see there message as being - ok, you may not be too fussed about cruelty to animals but think about the morals and lack of compassion of the person carrying out thses acts, should they be allowed to go unchecked?.
In that respect I think its an interesting angle.
I dont see it as exploitative to Peters memory or suffering. This mans ugly mug is being shown with the labels he chose for himself.

I'm surprised that so many posters so far say they wouldn't have recognised him.

I wish they would leave Baby P alone. The poor boy was used throughout his miserable life and is being used now.

I am not aware of any programmes that specifically takes animal abusers and questions their behaviour to humans. As far as I know they are totally separate anyway, so whether he was prosecuted or not, the argument is the same on the slander thing......but in terms of whether it would matter if he had been prosecuted......the answer is no. It would have made no difference

Not sure it would make any difference to the next Baby P either - even if the abuser is shown to be an animal abuser, the 2 aren't currently joined up......so what? So infact the entire thing is pointless, unless you are only concerned about animals, which is what they are..........so.........I have just got it.............they are exploiting the abuse of children for the welfare of animals. There is nothing to gain for children by this advert. At all.

How very fucking warped.

Ok, what evidence is there that they "rarely" stop there? Do we have studies done on how many people visited by the RSPCA/Police/PETA for animal cruelty have also/go on to abuse a person be that adult or child?

I suspect not - at least nothing serious.

It is sensationalist and insensitive at best.

There is also somthing more than a bit sickening about linking BabyP and animal cruelty in this way. Thre is a huge divide between (for example) someone too elderly to take a much loved dog to a vet who may be guilty of animal cruelty by PETAs terms and someone who would do this to a child.

I think it is an ineffctive poster because it makes people equate cruelty to animals with an extreme 'monster' and not 'the man next door'. What it is trying to say, the person who keeps a puppy tied up in his garden may also kill a child so report him...well maybe. Or perhaps the man who kicks a puppy to death may kill a child...well yes but I would report someone for kicking a puppy to death anyway!

Maybe - sorry I got carried away with the principle rather than the thread. Yes I think it would be fairly hideous for anyone involved in the case.

x post

Awfull,
I understand people feel strongly about animal cruelty, But compareing it to what that poor baby went trough is completly wrong!

I think i am with you Orm - the overall argument is important.......but it's just the way they have done it. If I were one of Baby P's siblings for example, who presumably live in the area......is that fair to use their life story to prove a point.......and worse, he was possibly abusive to them too......and there he is 20ft tall on a poster..........just ethically very suspect from a supposedly caring organisation

Hmm fair point ProfLayton but it doesn't make me think about the campaign against animals (which is surely PETA's aim when using this image). It makes me think that they're exploiting an image and extrapolating a link. It's too subtle then. I'd contact the RSPCA re animal cruelty anyway, not PETA (who I associate with Naomi Campbell)

Again, I thought the point was that he never had been prosecuted for abusing animals, because no one ever reported it. In fact, if he was prosecuted for abusing animals then the campaign (if you report sadistic bastards while they are only abusing animals they will never have the chance to go on to abuse children) becomes completely pointless.

They aren't asking you to call PETA if you see someone throwing a kitten out of a window (etc.) -- what they are asking is for you to actually call the police (or RSPCA) rather than just tut and say "dearie me, how unpleasant, he'll come to a bad end, that one, you mark my words" and wait for someone else to do it.