The $5500 Rat

[Wavelength]

Hungry D-list celebrities kills rat in jungle for sustinence on boring reality show. Criminal charges are pressed against the man before being dropped, then the TV station is fined $5500 (AUD).

ITV fined A$3000 for cruelty to ran on "I'm a Celebrity... Get Me Out Of Here!"

A spokesperson stated on Monday that UK television company ITV have been fined A$3000 (about US$2591 or £1663) for cruelty to animals in an incident on programme "I'm a Celebrity…Get Me Out of Here!", where two celebrities killed and ate a rat.

The incident involved actor Stuart Manning and television chef Gino D'Acampo, who went on to win the ninth series of the programme, which was broadcast in 2009. Inside the jungle, having been reduced to rations of beans and rice, the two celebrities caught a rat before killing it and then cooking it, to give the beans and rice "more protein", before eating the rat, which contestant and actor George Hamilton described as "actually quite nice". Inside the programme's video diary room, at the time of the recording of it, Gino D'Acampo said: "I saw one of these rats running around. I got a knife, I got its throat, I picked it up."

RSPCA Australia had stated that performing an act like this on television was "not acceptable". Initially, Manning and D'Acampo were charged for animal cruelty. However, their charges were dropped when ITV made the confession that production staff had allowed the celebrities to carry out the act of killing the rat. After a court trial in Sydney, Australia, ITV got a fine of A$3000. The company also had to pay costs of A$2500 (US$2192 or £1396).

An ITV spokesperson said that "ITV has apologised for the mistake which led to this incident. The production was unaware that killing a rat could be an offence, criminal or otherwise in New South Wales, and accepts that further inquiries should have been made. This was an oversight and we have since thoroughly reviewed our procedures and are putting in place a comprehensive training programme to ensure that this does not happen in future series."

Honky-tonk cases like this set back progress in preventing actual animal cruelty. Meanwhile, I'm still trying to figure out what exactly is cruel about eating a rodent.

[Valkysas]

Re: The $5500 Rat

it's illegal to kill animals for entertainment purposes. thus the whole "no animals were harmed in the making of this" thing.

they didnt have to kill it for survival, as they had beans and rice. thats why they got fined.

[Wavelength]

Re: The $5500 Rat

it's illegal to kill animals for entertainment purposes. thus the whole "no animals were harmed in the making of this" thing.

they didnt have to kill it for survival, as they had beans and rice. thats why they got fined.

Are you referring to an Australian law of some sort? Because this exact same thing happened a few months ago when Natalie killed a rat on the US version of Survivor, and not only have I not heard of any charges or fines, but the host, the other players, the show, and the entire viewing audience all called her awesome for it. Since season one, they've killed chickens, fish, and so on to eat. On Fear Factor, they regularly eat all kinds of living... um... things. If it were illegal, I'm sure it would have stopped by now.

Also, any hunting (whether for sport or food) is killing animals for "entertainment purposes" (unless you literally have no other food around) every bit as much as this was. Why aren't they prosecuted, if this is illegal?

I really think this is ridiculous. What's next, are we gonna throw kids in juvie for frying an ant on the sidewalk?

[Armored]

Re: The $5500 Rat

Honky-tonk cases like this set back progress in preventing actual animal cruelty

Actual animal cruelty? Stabbing another living being to death for entertainment isn't ACTUAL animal cruelty to you? Lemme guess, its "just a rat" right?

[Kefka Jr.]

Re: The $5500 Rat

UK celebrities aren't real celebrities, so they're susceptible to fines like regular people.

[BlueSenshi]

Re: The $5500 Rat

It doesn't sound like they tortured it first. $5500 sounds a bit crazy to me.

I could understand if this was a house pet or they stole it from a farm or something, but it was wild. People eat wild animals for food all the time, regardless of the availability of other food. Animals do it, too. It's not cruel; it's just carnivores being carnivores (or omnivores).

And yes, it is "just a rat". What else would it be? It's not like they're valuable. They're pests. PESTS! They get into food supplies and either eat or contaminate tons of food all the time. This really isn't a creature I'm going to feel sorry for. Granted, it's not really something I would want to eat, either.

[marcus]

Re: The $5500 Rat

Fine for slaying a rat on Australian TV: About 5,000USD.
Fine for pirating a video game in Australia: About 1.2 million USD

[Valkysas]

Re: The $5500 Rat

Are you referring to an Australian law of some sort? Because this exact same thing happened a few months ago when Natalie killed a rat on the US version of Survivor, and not only have I not heard of any charges or fines, but the host, the other players, the show, and the entire viewing audience all called her awesome for it. Since season one, they've killed chickens, fish, and so on to eat. On Fear Factor, they regularly eat all kinds of living... um... things. If it were illegal, I'm sure it would have stopped by now.

Laws in most parts of the world. Survivor gets away with it because it is a survival issue.

fish, and other "game animals" do not count, as long as they are killed for food.

insects and the other creepy-crawly things eaten on fear factor don't count for... some reason.

[Wavelength]

Re: The $5500 Rat

This whole thing seems so ridiculous to me. I can understand people sticking up for the rat, maybe, but not for the rats who decided to press charges and fines for this.

I could understand if this was a house pet or they stole it from a farm or something, but it was wild. People eat wild animals for food all the time, regardless of the availability of other food. Animals do it, too. It's not cruel; it's just carnivores being carnivores (or omnivores).

It's good to know that at least one person has their head on straight!!

UK celebrities aren't real celebrities

...Okay, okay, at least two people, then.

Actual animal cruelty? Stabbing another living being to death for entertainment isn't ACTUAL animal cruelty to you? Lemme guess, its "just a rat" right?

First of all, yes, it's "just a rat". It's not a human. It's not a dog. It's not a dolphin. If it were hungry, it would do the same thing to you if it could.

Second of all, killing anything for entertainment is not okay in my book. Killing a rat for food IS okay. They didn't kill the rat to be entertained. Was the act made into entertainment? Yes, but that wasn't the intention behind what was done and you can't argue that it was.

Finally, ACTUAL animal cruelty to me would be to torture an animal, or to kill it when there's absolutely no reason to. A lot of slaughterhouse practices are ACTUAL animal cruelty. Some Eastern countries' fishing practices are ACTUAL animal cruelty (especially in regards to sharks). Heck, I feel a lot of pet shops and horse trainers constitue ACTUAL animal cruelty to some extent, but I don't really feel like having that conversation here. Killing a rat to eat it because you are going hungry is not ACTUAL animal cruelty.

Fine for slaying a rat on Australian TV: About 5,000USD.
Fine for pirating a video game in Australia: About 1.2 million USD

Ah, gotta love Australia. They make Germany look like a bunch of libertarians.

Laws in most parts of the world. Survivor gets away with it because it is a survival issue.

fish, and other "game animals" do not count, as long as they are killed for food.

insects and the other creepy-crawly things eaten on fear factor don't count for... some reason.

They get a (meager) supply of food on Survivor as well, enough to live - and it's usually, aptly enough, beans and/or rice. They get lots of food in reward challenges as well. Hunting on that show may be a matter of keeping your body healthy but it's not a matter of true survival. I assume it's the same on I'm a Celebrity!, though I haven't watched it since the midpoint of the awful US Season in 2000.

I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong about what counts as to the law, but I do feel it's more heinous to kill a deer (or a shark or a pig) than it is to kill a rat.

[marcus]

Re: The $5500 Rat

It's pretty easy to close this argument by saying 5 grand is chump change to a major studio and they probably wrote the government or whatever a check on the spot.

[Armored]

Re: The $5500 Rat

First of all, yes, it's "just a rat". It's not a human. It's not a dog. It's not a dolphin. If it were hungry, it would do the same thing to you if it could.

A wild dog or a dolphin would kill you too, so would a lot of humans in parts of the world, that's not an argument. Trying to differentiate animals based on what you like or dislike is absurd. Killing a rat is no different than someone coming up and cutting your throat.

[marcus]

Re: The $5500 Rat

A wild dog or a dolphin would kill you too, so would a lot of humans in parts of the world, that's not an argument. Trying to differentiate animals based on what you like or dislike is absurd. Killing a rat is no different than someone coming up and cutting your throat.

Yes it is, holy crap. This is PETA level of absurdity where chicken farms are likened to the holocaust. The guys killed and ate a rat who was probably going to be the next meal of a snake or owl anyways. If a bear kills a child while sniffing around his campsite we shrug and say "The bear was hungry and the kid was in the wrong place at the wrong time" but if we eat a rat it's ****ing inhumane.

Let's not attach human empathy to every single wild animal because in the time it took me to post this 100,000 rats around the world just died and nobody shed a tear.

[Wavelength]

Re: The $5500 Rat

First of all, yes, it's "just a rat". It's not a human. It's not a dog. It's not a dolphin. If it were hungry, it would do the same thing to you if it could.

A wild dog or a dolphin would kill you too, so would a lot of humans in parts of the world, that's not an argument. Trying to differentiate animals based on what you like or dislike is absurd. Killing a rat is no different than someone coming up and cutting your throat.

Okay, first of all, I was making two separate arguments (one: it's not a higher-level animal; two: it would do the same to you if it could). You conflated them, but I can see how my wording was confusing. Though, I've never heard of dolphins killing and eating a human. Sure you haven't been watching too much sci-fi?

I am not differentiating animals based on what I like (I can't stand dogs); I am differentiating them based on their intelligence, capacity for loyalty, and rarity. I would never go out and kill a rat for fun but if I had to kill a rat or a dog, I would kill the rat.

But to say "killing a rate is no different than someone coming up and cutting your throat"? Come on, man. That's idiotic. Are you going to kill yourself out of regret for the bug you stepped on by accident yesterday? Are you going to kill yourself for eating a fish or an undeveloped chicken (egg) or an onion for dinner yesterday? With a very, very few exceptions, something has to die for you to eat and stay alive.

===

Marcus: Yes, exactly right. This is the kind of thing that makes PETA (a really good cause in theory) and similar organizations into a running joke.

[Armored]

Re: The $5500 Rat

What's idiotic is to think humanity can continue overpopulating the planet with people whose attitudes lead to global extinction. And yes, that one single rat is a part of the whole system.

[BlueSenshi]

Re: The $5500 Rat

That's an entirely different argument.

Eating a single rat for food doesn't cause global extinction. Other animals eat rats all the time, because they are naturally plentiful anywhere that has accessible food. They're pests. They will overpopulate any time they get the chance.

The question here is, was it reasonable to charge someone (or a TV station) any amount of money for allowing a wild animal to be killed and eaten? No. They didn't eat one of the last 6 pandas from a zoo in China. They ate one of a billion rats. Fining someone for that is insane. How do you attribute a monetary value to a wild animal?

Here's one way: Determine the monetary benefit of said animal and subtract any damages the animal probably would have caused in its lifetime... and if you're feeling especially frisky, project this out to all of its offspring, too. Considering rats are pests and have tons of offspring, it's very likely those guys saved hundreds of thousands of dollars in property damage or contaminated/consumed food.

All in all, eating the rat was probably good for their health and the economy AND the environment.

Also, I'd like to point out that our dear President Obama killed a fly on TV and didn't even need it for food. Should we fine him, as well?