I'm sorry but this really did make me inwardly say, 'he just cannot be serious': Wildlife documentaries infringe animals' privacy, says report | Environment | The Guardian: "'We can never really know if animals are giving consent, but they do often engage in forms of behaviour which suggest they'd rather not encounter humans,'"
I think that he should look up the word 'privacy' in a dictionary. I'm pretty certain it can't, by definition apply to natterjack toads, for example. There is a difference between 'privacy' and 'vulnerability'. Why would humans want privacy? Are those concerns that a squirrel could have?
Nous like scouse or French -oui? We wee whee all the way ... to mind us a bunch of thunks. Too much information? How could that be?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Spend and tax" not "tax and spend"
I got a response from my MP which got me kind of mad. You'll see why as I reproduce it here. Apologies for the strange changes in types...
-
I've been watching the TV series 'Foundation'. I read the books about 50 years ago (I know!) but scarcely now remember anything...
-
from: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/online/2012/5/22/1337672561216/Annular-solar-eclipse--008.jpg
-
"'Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell yo...
No comments:
Post a Comment