The concept of animal rights, as opposed to animal welfare, is a complex and often divisive one.

Most of us would agree that any creature which can feel pain should be spared from unnecessary pain – and when the animal in question falls under our care, is deserving of a certain standard of welfare. But there is less consensus about what rights animals are entitled to, if any – with some people rejecting the notion wholesale while others make a case for putting the ‘higher’ creatures on an equal, or virtually equal, footing to humans.

That is why we are still, in the 21st Century, reporting on stories about circuses such as Peter Jolly’s, in Otley last weekend, using wild animals like lions and zebras in their acts – and the resulting protests. Terrible cruelties and neglect were certainly suffered by some circuses’ animals in the past. But with the level of regulation and inspection in the UK being what it is now, it is fairly safe to assume that animals currently being used in performances – such as those at Peter Jolly’s, which is government licensed – enjoy as good a level of care as they can, given the circumstances.

But it’s that phrase, given the circumstances, that gets to the nub of the debate. Because the RSPCA claims it is the conditions of being a ‘circus animal’ in itself, rather than any failing of care, that is unacceptable. The charity’s case is that it is simply wrong and cruel to make wild animals live “lives of forced performance, prolonged confinement and unnatural social groupings.” But circuses say they know their animals best and that they are content and happy. For now the public can shape what happens next by either going to – or boycotting – circuses with the ‘exotic’ animals most of us are now more used to seeing, in the wild, on our TVs.

Just big switch-off?

It sounds like a recipe for disaster. A scheme to switch off some street lights during the dead of night around Leeds is expected to save £1.3million over the next ten years. But many people will be feeling uneasy about the project which is being launched this week. In common with local authorities all over the country, Leeds is having to make savings in its already over-stretched budget – and this particular cut has the added advantage of reducing carbon emissions.

But it is unlikely to sit easily with many members of the public who like their streets to be well lit. Leeds City Council stresses that it is working in partnership with emergency services, crime reduction, community safety and road safety representatives to carry out risk assessments before deciding which lights should be switched off. The public are being reassured that certain areas such as hospitals, sheltered housing and subways will not be affected. There will also be the flexibility to turn the lights back on if problems emerge. The project appears to be well-planned and well thought out – and we can only hope that the apparent care which has been put into the scheme will avert any potential problems.