I think this was inevitable, though if any charges are brought, it will be interesting to see who they charge exactly, as I am sure Gill will claim he had nothing to do with it ? Incidentally, I personally don`t think the RSPCA should be getting involved with any zoo matters, irrespective of the zoo concerned.Whilst I appreciate they have an important role to play, but zoos are not their place.
Zoo raided by RSPCA after keeper killed by tiger and hundreds of animals died South Lakes Zoo where tiger killed keeper put under RSPCA investigation
Barrow BC - Licensing Regulatory Committee Looks like the 'new management' might have pulled the wool over enough eyes to be granted a licence
I believe the RSPCA have certain rights in investigating cruelty cases. Whether this is appropriate is a matter of some contention.
That lads letter (Jason Potter) should have caused a great deal of concern, he tried to get help for the animals and K B found out so she sacked him on the 6th of April as he went to work he thought to attend a hearing at 10-30. as he walked in K B met him at 8-30 and sacked him ... no hearing allowed? After the fact, it turned out that on the same day the RSPCA was doing an impromptu inspection. After reading his letter which he had to go in and sign with two people from Licencing present, im absolutely shocked that the licence was given. Page 284 of 287. He absolutely tried his best for the animals as you will read. Why no notice was taken of his report Ill never know.
I believe the only way the charity can enter a property is with a police officer, any one visited by them can admit the police officer, but can refuse the charity acess, that is why they often involve the police on call outs. They think it gives them and their titles (inspector, chief inspector etc) more authority.
the mirror are still on about Gill..... old news but... Shocking details of scandal-hit zoo boss' other park abroad
I'm really shocked. What's going on there? I haven't followed up that story so may I ask someone to explain what happens to the zoo and the animals now.
Because the last inspection showed improvements, after numerous warnings about bad management one very recently by an ex worker fired for telling. they are going to get the licence? granted its in another name but the "new" management have been with David Gill for up to 10 years. So, Yes it will go on. as usual...in the name of Karen Brewer CZCL. who has been with Gill for about 8 / 10 years. the best thing to read are the licencing reports on this and especially on page 284 of 287. Written by Jason Potter. His report is about conditions to date, now. The licencing meeting to decide this is on the 9th of May, and the officers recommendation has been to "GRANT" them a licence. The council of that day "could" decide to vote against that recommendation but, I doubt it.
Why do you assume Potter's account is credible? Given the number of reliable experts who are endorsing the grant of a new license, I'd be inclined to side with them rather than a resentful ex-employee with a personal axe to grind. Altogether this is rather splendid news and I am really heartened to see that a fresh license looks likely. I am not blind to DG's obsessiveness but hope sincerely that he can refrain from interfering for the sake of the animals and the future of the zoo.
Why do you assume the ex-employee is not credible and has an axe to grind? As I can inform you that this ex-employee reported concerns many months ago and prior to December 2016 furthermore, with another keeper leaving last week who was deemed to be in the in crowd of staff likewise for the sacked keeper. I know personally why that ex-keeper left and your assumption is nowhere near the truth. Given that the licence application for KB is only so far as a recommendation, as it still has to be heard in front of the licence committee, it can still be changed on the day of meeting. In my eyes this lad deserves all the credit for taking the risk to speak out when so many others kept quiet. All he intended was to help the animals.
Well..... The plot thickens... Lo and behold at the eleventh hour Barrow Borough Licensing committee fail dramatically at this procedure Judge blasts solicitors as a 'disgrace' in South Lakes Safari Zoo licence appeal hearing Today on a Saturday they sneak on ADDENDUM_AGENDAITEM6.pdf onto their site which some feel was the part 2 and should have been disclosed for perusal by the public to make reference to in their submissions on the Zoo Licence application to Karen Brewer CZCL. The issue now after being rapped by Judge Chalk is this may mean that as this has been made public at the very last hour it reads very bad to some and probably would have been included in any submissions made to this licencing comittee for the 9th. .. For this info to be ,ade public this late suggests yet another severe error or a deliberately late release???? Very interesting. Barrow BC - Licensing Regulatory Committee in this CZCL agree to take on all and every known and unknown liability past and present also CZCL will pay all liabilities including unknown liabilities including unknown of DSG and SLZ including repayment to HMRC.
Aren't there two separate matters here? The "disgrace" of the solicitors. There was a court case re the appeal five days before the meeting to determine the other application. Under those circumstances would it really have made sense to spend public money on a written submission? "Council pays thousands to solicitors days before case overtaken by events" would have been the headline. Don't understand why the two sides didn't ask for an adjournment however. Use of the word "sneak" implies something underhand but I read it as the Council trying to put as much as possible in the public domain and I imagine there were long discussions about what could or couldn't be made public. Incidentally, I find elements of that draft contract rather alarming!
Oh, and the Licensing Committee hasn't "fail[ed] dramatically" - the judge's criticism was of the legal team, not the committee.
Ah but that doesn't fit with Farmers one track mind,but these things sometimes happens it would not be the first time it has ever happened!!!
How would it have been a waste of public money to follow court procedures it was shear incompetence on the part of the council solicitor to not have prepared the case correctly,gill,s solicitor was probably following his clients instructions as he has always shown contempt for the legal process as previous cases have demonstrated This draft contract would appear to transfer all gills debts and liabilities onto the new fledgling company and i find this quite alarming for a company that has no assets and no financial backing. I also find it alarming that the new company were unaware of the annual cost of licencing,it would appear that they are taking on substantial debt from the previous owner including large tax liabilities a very astute move by gill. i,m also not very comfortable with the clause that lows gill reasonable access without prior notification,perhaps this is a standard clause in these contracts? Farmers comments are quite justified as the council must have had this document for quite a while and to publish on a weekend just before the meeting is very unusual and one could say underhand
d day tomorrow , as much as i hope the animals are taken care of most of the old management team really should not be allowed to keep being involved in the running of that place , hopefully it will be closed to the public untill new owners/ carers are found but i very much doubt that will happen
Closing it to the public is not going to achieve anything positive. Even if the old management are to go, whats the point in closing it to the public and cutting off of its only source of income? Surely the conditions will only deteriorate without finance.
