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

[GeraldineMumsnet]

This PETA poster has been put up in Haringey, the borough where Baby P lived, by PETA, which campaigns for animal rights.

BBC Radio London wants to know your take on this. Do you think shock tactics in ads are acceptable?

Thanks in advance
MNHQ

There is a statistically significant relationship between cruelty to animals in childhood and subsequent violent crime as an adult. I kind of get what they are saying.........but it is done in a way that is uncomfortable and exploitative. Indeed I am not sure the guy had ever been prosecuted for violence to animals - is it possible that they are slandering him?? Or making up the story to suit their needs? Of course, he may have abused animals, but do they know that for sure?

It is just an immature and ethically questionable way of trying to communicate an important argument. Shame on them.

Is it only being used in Haringay?

I wouldn't have known who this man was from the picture if not for the thread title.

However, if it is being used in Haringay then I would expect the local population will be more aware of who this man is and what he has done.

In which case I think it is very lazy and, personally in rather bad taste, to link the case of Baby P and to PETA's cause.

Actually I think it is lazy and in poor taste wherever it would be used.

Hi All

We'll be talking about this poster on BBC London 94.9fm's Drivetime with Eddie Nestor tonight between 5pm-7pm.

We'd love your thoughts, so if you fancy listening in and making a comment on air then we'll be very pleased to hear from you!

Thanks and happy listening

Anna O'Neill
Reporter
BBC London 94.9fm

ruby - course you would, so would I. But organisations like PETA are, I think, trying to challenge the mindset that there is a huge dividing line between the way we treat humans and the way we treat other animals.

I don't agree with them on many things - I eat meat and wear leather and I think that banning zoos these days is simple wrong-headed. But it isn't a bad thing to constantly bring these issues to people's attention.

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.

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)

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

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

x post

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.

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!

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 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.

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

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.

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.

their message... Gah!

There is some evidence yes MmeG

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.

Its a bit of a generalisation isnt it.

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!

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.