Suggests that the restaurant initially prioritized aesthetics over animal welfare, despite claims of compliance, and only acted under public pressure.
While the restaurant’s perspective is included, the framing questions their judgment in using a live animal as decor, highlighting the cost of the parrot and enclosure as signs of commodification rather than care.
“They said it was felt the animal complemented the 'natural environment' created through the venue's interiors, and that £5,000 was spent on the glass tank fitted with a filtration and ventilation system.”
