The people in charge of animal protection in films

Off Topic » in reply to Somehow makes sense.

Lindy — 9/13/2006 3:10:27 AM (archived)

...all agree Irwin was exploiting animals for the titallation of the public.
BEFORE they had animal rights protected in films, Irwin could have gotten away with it. Now we're politically correct and there are rules. He was cited many times, but never charged.
Some saw that as thrilling "entertainment". Me included.

He took waay too many risks, actually was tempting fate. I knew it would happen sometime. He seemed likeable enough, but clips of him with his newborn baby in his arms feeding that 14 ft. crocodile with a piece of meat was intolerably risky. Beyond stupid. Child endangerment. He should have been charged.
Did they charge Michael Jackson for hanging his baby over a balcony with one arm?
Do celebrities get away with stuff they put US in jail for?

The whole thread (9 posts)

Now THIS is retarded - Laurie Street - 9/12/2006 8:32:11 PM
- Disappointing, but not very surprising, sadly. (n/t) - McFly - 9/12/2006 9:56:44 PM
- Somehow makes sense. - Bowser - 9/12/2006 8:46:13 PM
  - The people in charge of animal protection in films - Lindy - 9/13/2006 3:10:27 AM
    - Anybody remember old, saintly Marlon Perkins... - alcaray - 9/13/2006 6:17:02 PM
    - re: animal protection - Tom Brosz - 9/13/2006 4:59:58 AM
      - And it goes without saying... - Tom Brosz - 9/13/2006 5:01:26 AM
        
        re: And it goes without saying... - Lindy - 9/13/2006 3:48:45 PM
    - May be why he's Australian - couldn't do it here, could sell it here. (n/t) - Bowser - 9/13/2006 3:51:08 AM

Recent posts

On this day in Off Topic

The whole thread (9 posts)