Skip to content or view screen version

SHAC v HLS

lab animal | 23.12.2008 15:12 | SHAC | Animal Liberation | Cambridge | Oxford

4 peaceful animal rights campaigners have today been convicted of serious offences. Most journalists like to avoid reporting the real issues and the truth regarding the SHAC campaign. Read on for an alternative to the crap that you`ll read elsewhere.

* Information for Media*

SHAC v HLS

Huntingdon Life Sciences are in the business of poisoning healthy animals to death. They are a contract testing operation that tests products for others. They have three sites two in the UK and one in the US. Five hundred animals are put to death every day by HLS. Every one is an individual with a heart beat. To decent people every killing is morally repugnant.

Each year HLS kill tens of thousands of horses, cats, dogs, primates, rabbits, hamsters, rats, mice and fish amongst others. None of these species bears any resemblance to human beings in either their visual make up or their DNA. The DNA discrepancies are crucial.

HLS hit the headlines in 1997 when they were exposed by an undercover worker with a hidden camera. This expose was screened on national TV and showed workers screaming abuse at terrified beagle dogs. One is filmed punching a puppy in the face in anger! The outcry that followed rocked the foundations of this once profitable company as the public made their objections felt. HLS shares were devastated and never recovered. Today HLS are unable to trade in more than 1% of their shares. This is a very, very sick company.

Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) is a public pressure campaign that grew out of the prime time exposure of HLS into a supremely efficient and imaginative global initiative. Using a variety of tactics intended to draw public attention and hamper operations such as mass protests, home demonstrations, leaflet drops, lock-ons, blockades and email floods SHAC has brought HLS to its knees. The informed public finds the business of HLS repulsive and will not allow them to regain their feet.

HLS have been exposed to the public time and time again. On each occasion a very familiar story comes out. The only logical conclusion is that HLS is rotten to the core. It is in the public domain that HLS workers have falsifying test results, include known sex offenders, have carried out tests while drunk, have been found guilty of animal cruelty and of using drugs. From 1995 to 2000 HLS broke the Good Laboratory Guidelines no less than 520 times in just one experiment! In 2004 The Observer exposed HLS for gassing beagle dogs to test a CFC chemical which was banned 15 years earlier. HLS is a very leaky secret.

Government legislation and public money has come thick and fast to ensure this distasteful scientifically unproven commercial concern continues unhindered by the progress of public opinion. High Court injunctions restrict public protest to a few hours a week at the gates of HLS. The company no longer owns its property but it reduced to leasing it back from those it sold out to. HLS has the Bank of England to sign its cheques because none of the High Street banks will provide banking services. The UK tax payer is also funding HLS’ insurance and for the police to spend vast resources on harassing citizens who speak out against this abhorrent business.

It should be worthy of note that an estimated 10,000 people die prematurely in the UK each year due to being given drugs that have been tested on animals by HLS and others and passed as safe. (1) Ten thousand human fatalities! In the US the number is estimated to be in excess of 100,000 with a further 2.2 million hospitalisations due to adverse drug reactions. (2)* *Animal tested drugs are the fourth biggest cause of death in the West after heart disease cancer and stroke. This is a scandal.

Vioxx alone has caused in excess of 100,000 deaths worldwide! SHAC activists have been persecuted relentlessly by the agents of government yet have hurt no one. SHAC activists are at work in many countries today and pledge to continue in their clearly defined, well advanced agenda to close down HLS.

Gregg Avery, Natasha Avery, Dan Amos, Heather Nicholson, Gerrah Selby, Gavin Medd- Hall and Dan Wadham and all others accused in this witch hunt are guilty of the highest level of compassion. They have given their all to save the lives of others and expose the inbuilt failings of animal experimentation. They are human beings of the future. Prison and the threat of prison will not stop decent people from doing what is right.

The use of further draconian laws to harass, detain and imprison animal advocates as threatened by Elizabeth Windsor in her latest annual speech will not right the many wrongs inside HLS and the wider drugs industry, nor will it remove the desire in the hearts of good men and women young and old to rid society of this cancer that consumes so many lives.

These law makers and those who remain silent during this onslaught against human freedom and animal rights will come to learn that there is no legislation can hold back human evolution. Animal testing is an ancient theory that has never been tested scientifically. Animal are dying. People are dying. Huntingdon Life Sciences is dying. The Animal Liberation Movement is alive and thriving.

Further information is available at www.shac.net  http://www.shac.net/

Or call 0845 458 0630

(1) Safe Medicines Campaign  http://www.curedisease.net/

(2) Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine  http://www.pcrm.org/

lab animal

Comments

Hide the following 29 comments

Why don't you...

23.12.2008 16:18

get a job you lazy hippies! Who cares about some animals that wouldn't exist anyway if they weren't going to be used in in vivo research?!

Member of the real world


A better idea: why don't you...

23.12.2008 16:54

...since you argue that drugs tested on animals are so bad for human health as well, why don't you pledge here in public that neither you nor any member of your family will ever accept any drug or medical treatment for any medical condition, however serious, which has been tested on animals? That should work.

Absued spin by lab animal


Are you sure?

23.12.2008 18:58

Are you sure they are 'guilty of the highest level of compassion'? They appear to be guilty of a sustained campaign of abuse and intimidation - one that extended not only to those who worked at HLS but also other family members and neighbours. Accusing people of being pedophiles and sending people used tampons would probable strike most people (and obviously the jury) as being nothing more that vicious intimidation by a self-appointed group of thugs.

Pommy


Peaceful?

23.12.2008 19:13

I used to go on a lot of the demos. It's true to say it was mostly a peaceful campaign but it seemed that the threats, trashed cars, etc were what really had the most effect and were encouraged in the newsletters of the campaign which called people to 'adopt a worker'.

Ex Shac member


Infiltrators

23.12.2008 19:20

Dear me, this site is being infiltrated isn't it folks. Decent people know the real truth about this campaign. Those who have no conscience may want to believe the various lies that have been spread in the interests of profit for animal abusers. No matter what biased and unfair sentances are dished out, wholly disproportionate to the crimes, as animal rights people get, , there are many good people who will continue to fight against this barbarity and if those with vested interests think putting away these activists will affect the animal rights movement they have another think coming! Inustice just makes those who have a conscience about innocent creatures being abused daily in British labs, more determined to end vivisection. And until it does end we will continue to fight (peacefully) against it. If this Government and its lackeys try to prevent peaceful protest and our right to freedom of expression and assembly we will fight even harder to keep those hard won civil liberties.

anon


those top comments look suspiciously like they are from the same person

23.12.2008 19:48

Call me cynical, but the top few comments criticizing the brave SHAC activists look suspiciously like they are from the same person.

What is the evidence for the activists' criminality? Nothing except for vague guilt by association. If they knew they had committed acts of arson or sending people hate mail,.why weren't they arrested or charged with that? Answer: BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T DO IT!

That's why they were charged with an open-ended blackmail charge instead. To blackmail someone, you don't have to do anything that would be illegal on its own, e.g. sending a compromising photo of someone to The Sun. So this effectively criminalises all protest groups that are aiming to change the behaviour of a company.Watch out for the same tactics being used in other areas that aren't animal rights related.

Also, they were all well aware that they were under constant surveillance; being followed, phones tapped and houses bugged. They would have been arrested before they got within a mile of a HLS supporter's house.

Don't get me wrong, I thought it was great when HLS workers or collaborators got attacked, but this trial was about locking up the legal side of things because they couldn't catch the criminal side.

veganarchist


Vicious intimidation

23.12.2008 20:01

' nothing more that vicious intimidation by a self-appointed group of thugs. ' states 'Pommy'
Now in my book, punching innocent Beagle puppies fits that bill, i.e. (vicious intimidation) damaged by HLS workers (self appointed group of thugs)

anon


SHAC extremism

23.12.2008 20:07

Dear 'Anon'

Please do continue to activate PEACEFULLY.

But as you well know, this lot were not PEACEFUL, were they?

Intimidation, violence, blackmail, harrassment. Not acceptable.

Why, three of them even admitted it. The rest were found guilty by a jury of their peers.

Most decent people in this country do not agree with your views.

Above all they do not agree with the intimidation, violence, blackmail and harrassment meted out by this arrogant group.

Animal welfare is fine, animal rights are too extreme. That is why SOCPA was introduced, by the democratic process.

If SHAC wants a fight, it can have one. And it will lose. Ask, Avery and Nicholson etc.


I'manontoobutonthewinningside.

I'manontoobutonthewinningside.


somewhat limited sympathy

23.12.2008 20:15

what gets me about so many righters is the extreme level of hatred they can direct against humans. there is something terribly misanthropic about many of them and they seem much more able to relate to animals than humans maybe due to a hellish childhood. more disturbing to me as an environmentalist though is that many rarely give a toss about animals actually threatened with real extinction out in the wild - you know - as in no more of a species, end of the line, gone for ever. released mink have brought some wild species close to extinction. and by resorting to such ridiculously hate filled tactics like digging up bodies, calling their victims paedos, threatening to aids infect people etc provokes the government into creating more and more ridiculously oppressive laws that are then used against ALL manner of activists not just righters. i'm sorry but issues like climate change, habitat loss to food and fuel crops, deforestation etc are going to kill billions more creatures from slow agonising starvation & drought than mad scientists are ever going to kill in labs. to most sensible people who are able to see things in proportion, these issues are just way way more important than artificially bred animals suffering in labs. it's in no small part due to extreme actions by righters that all direct action protests even quite fluffy forms of climate protest have now become criminalised to the insane extent they are now. you're giving us all a hard time, not just your victims. think about that please.

pete


Most decent people?

23.12.2008 21:15

Dear anon too,
So you thnk most decent people think it is right to punch and kick innocent Beagle puppies do you? Cut open animals without anaesthetic and falsify results? What a sad statement to make, but then again, you do seem, in your arrogant way, to think you can speak for the rest of us. Maybe someday you too will get a conscience, In the meantime, may you reap what you sow (and condone)
And as for the accused, of course we al know that the police in this country never lie don't we (ask the family of the man murdered on the tube)!! And the judiciary encourage fair and unbaised outcomes (ask the faimily of the man murdered on the tube)!!

anon


I'manontoobutonthewinningside.

23.12.2008 22:16

Dear anon.

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean that I think it right to kick or punch innocent beagle puppies.

The b******d that did that was sacked and prosecuted. Most decent people agree with that.

However neither do the majority of decent people in this country think it right to harass, intimidate or blackmail members of the public going about their LAWFUL business.

My evidence for saying I speak for most people? The democratic process that implemeted SOCPA and also the verdict of the jury.

The support for SHAC? Perhaps the few extremists that wander round the City pointlessly hurling abuse at the fronts of banks? Or the blackmailers locked up in prison?


As you point out, the rule of law in the UK is not perfect, but it is FAR better that the rule of anarchy and intimidation offered by extremists like SHAC.


I'manontoobutonthewinningside.


I'm so sorry

23.12.2008 23:13

I'm so sorry for all of you who don't use your brains

againessismyname


I just hope that all SHAC critics are comfortable with this scenario..

24.12.2008 00:02

You and a couple of friends start a campaign against a company selling torture equipment. When you start the campaign it is legal to do peaceful home demos and these are effective and so they are criminalised. You also target a company which advertises the equipment for the origional company. Other activists are prepared to go a step further by burning out a car belonging to the MD you have nothing to do with this or the hate mail recieved by the workers and you do not encourage such actions.You are careful to run a legal campaign and consult lawyers to read every leaflet and newsletter, you even meet with the police to make sure that you are behaving legally. When an interim injunction is granted you abide by it.

Although "violence" comitted by other activists is limited to property (bar one isolated event) there are no shootings, stabbings, kidnappings etc you face 14 years in prison despite the fact that many activists have been attacked and have recieved hate mail themselves. A couple of younger activists who were children when the campaign began 7 years ago are publicly accused of actions that took place long before they even read about the issue. You are accused of every little thing done by everyone else in the national media.

I remember at the G8 protests a fellow animal rights activist telling me that he had stopped a couple of lads throwing boulders over a motorway bridge at motorists. If they had done that and killed someone it is possible that someone framed as an organiser could be charged with conspiracy to blackmail with persons unknown. It is possible that ANY campaigner who is a nuisance to the authorities could face this charge and that the police could invent or engineer something distasteful to blight the campaign with.

To conclude the defendants did not do every single naughty thing against HLS, in fact there is (to my knowledge) no evidence they did anything along the lines of sending condoms in the post for example. They have been found guilty of "conspiring" with those who did and that should cause grave concern to all who believe that democracy is worth striving for. Also bear in mind that 2 defendants did not blackmail HLS etc for 6 years because they were still at school and not involved at that time. Every single activist whether or not they agree with SHAC or even if they are pro vivisection should be very wary. This is a precedent which will haunt ALL activists of every denomination which challenges the powerful!

Lynn Sawyer


A blow against human rights

24.12.2008 00:43

The anti animal rights brigade is missing the point completely.

These people were NOT convicted for assault, property damage, harassment, etc. They were convicted FOR RUNNING A CAMPAIGNING ORGANISATION. It was alleged that BECAUSE they ran such a campaign, they were to blame for any actions by persons unknown (who police have been unable to catch), who committed whatever specific crimes happened.

It has NOT been proven, and DID NOT HAVE to be proven under the state's fascist reading of the law, that THESE INDIVIDUALS harmed ANYONE WHATSOEVER.

This is NOT about whether animal rights is "extreme". It is about THE RIGHT TO PROTEST.

Under this precedent, it is quite possible that if Amnesty International published a tyrant's address, and the tyrant received a mail bomb, Amnesty International officials could be convicted for conspiracy to blackmail.

If an arms trade campaigner publishes details of the atrocities committed by an arms manufacturer, and some illegal action later occurs, the campaigner might face 14 years in jail.

I am sympathetic to the animal rights cause BUT I WOULD BE APPALLED AND OUTRAGED AT THESE SENTENCES EVEN IF IT WAS (SAY) PRO-HUNTING ACTIVISTS WHO WERE CONVICTED.

Also, this repression RETROSPECTIVELY JUSTIFIES whatever violence happens BECAUSE IT SHOWS THAT THE STATE WILL NOT TOLERATE PEACEFUL PROTEST AND ORDINARY CAMPAIGNING. It is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY that this precedent be overturned by whatever means necessary. ONLY A POLICE STATE CAN CONVICT ON SUCH GROUNDS.

I can understand that the animal rights movement is determined to show itself as unintimidated and to draw attention to how the alleged harassment etc is nothing next to the suffering of laboratory animals. This is, of course, a valid argument. But the issue here should concern people across the spectrum, well beyond those sympathetic to the cause - even its most devout enemies. Everyone is at risk from this precedent.

PS the individuals who pleaded guilty, did so because convinced they would be convicted in this show trial and sought a plea deal, not necessarily because they were "guilty".

PPS notice that no action has been taken over the News of the World publishing addresses of suspected sex offenders, nor has Redwatch been shut down. SELECTIVE SELECTIVE SELECTIVE.

V


I agree V

24.12.2008 07:30

It is interesting how violent Nazis have not felt the brunt of this legislation, they kill people and burn out buildings with people inside something beyond even NETCU's wildest nightmares when thinking of the animal rights movement.

What of the hunt supporters who threatened to poison the water supply? Should the leaders of the Coutryside Alliance be rounded up? Even though they are our enemies I think we would agree that this would be most unjust.

Although the entire animal rights movement should be aware that we are at risk from the state the entire population who value freedom will also face danger of prolonged prison sentences if for example they protest against the powerful for to do so is to accept responsibility for every single action taken against the target in question regardless of whether or not protestors have any knowledge of or approve of such actions.

Highlighting how big corporations are being fawned over by NETCU and the Home Office is vital. We need to get our thinking caps on and not be disheartened because most of the public do not want to live in a totalitarian regime, we need to convince them that it is time to claim our liberty.

lynn Sawyer


I disagree V

24.12.2008 10:48

Dear 'V'

Your first paragraph is just a gross distortion of the truth, as the jury decided. Not the state, the jury. Members of the public. Got that? Secondly, three of them pleaded 'guilty'! They ADMITTED criminal offences! Blackmail, not innocently 'running a campaign' as you suggest.

Secondly, the NoW and RedWatch have committed no criminal offences. SHAC, as they ADMITTED, did.

Dear Lynn Sawyer

What 'Nazis' are you talking about? Nazis 'burning down houses and killing people'? Go on - name one example that wasn't investigated as a murder. David Copeland?

Secondly, this isn't a case of the state repressing protest, as you suggest. It is a case of the British public telling criminal extremists they will not tolerate their behaviour when it goes beyond legitimate protest. Easy when you think about it.

Criminal behaviour by activists undermines the cause.

Anon too


Arrogant

24.12.2008 13:05

Dear anon too,
If you think that the b***ds (and it was not just one person) who punched beagle puppies was the only atrocity at HLS you need to educate yourself. And do not assume I agree with unlawful activities as I do not. You are clearly extremely arrogant to assume such. What I do not accept is innocent people being intimidated on lawful protests (and clearly you have never been on one if you think it does not happen) and laws being misued agains legal protest and our hard won human rights being abused and eroded daily by new Government regulations which are made to prevent protest against those who abuse animals.
I do not condone any illegal activity but I do wish, with all my heart, that this obscene company is closed down and I have no doubts that it will be eventually. Torturing animals is not going to continue and will be thought of in the future as we look back on slavery and other atrocities in our past. Vvisection has no place in a civilised society and animal rights campaigners will continue to campaign against this abuse until it is stopped. NO amount of exaggerated stories and disproportionate prison sentances will stop people fighting for the rights of animals. If this Government will not listen to what is exposed in British labs, (the so called highly regulated experiments which have been shown time and again for the sham they are) has no will to look for other avenues and is only concerned about the profits of it's puppet master, the pharma companies, then the conflict between those who care and those who do not will never end.

anon


Legal system

24.12.2008 13:12

How heartening that anon too has such faith in the British legal sytem. I wonder if the family of John Charles de Menezes has the same opinion??

Clearly anon too, you are part of the establishment, haven't you got better things to do than peek on this site, i.e. film innocent protesters or bug innocent people's telephones??

anon


saywer

24.12.2008 22:03

Tell us all how you can justify throwing bricks through the windows of families or placing bombs on the doorstep of GSK employees? All tactics employed by shac activists. Lets not beat about the bush Ms saywer we all know that shac and the averies were the driving force for the alf.

Paul


Dearie me

25.12.2008 12:47

Well Paul I'm not going to bother because ;
1.When I had my leg broken and my face smashed by a police officer that was just seen as an opportunity to terrorise witnesses and then use my scars as a form of identification, I was more or less branded as well as maimed by PC Manton.
2. Tripple iii (HLS shareholders) thought nothing of having a series of nice little online chats about raping, torturing and killing me and other activists clearly meant to be read by us.
3. Unlawful arrests and assaults.
4. Hatemail and things sent in the post such as dead mice by vivisectors

None of which has ever been justified by your side though to be fair although this is a very uneven playing field and we would never expect someone who sent us a dead body in the post to even be arrested let alone sent down for 12 years I have had quite a few legal victories via IPCC complaints and civil litigation.
For the record I would never condone anything that would harm a person (unless in self defence or in defence of the helpless) because I am much nicer than anyone who works for HLS and I am not into torturing or killing like they are.

Lynn Sawyer


Dead bodies in the post.

25.12.2008 18:42

I supose that you would have had somethingto say if they had dug up your pet and held it for ransom, like what your good friends did? Or maybe you can tell us all of the time your dad was down stairs in his bed suffering from terminal cancer while a brick was thrown through the window falling on the pillow? What about the kids? Oh but this is all lies, propaganda isn't it?

Ms Saywer Iknow how much you admire these people after all I sat listerning to you all laughing and joking. You can't defend these people because what they do is undefensable!

Paul


V

25.12.2008 18:53

Three guilty pleas spring to mind V.....

Paul


Lyn

25.12.2008 21:13

Lyn, Don't even bother to reply to this asshole. He is clearly one of the establishment and has his own agenda. Decent people know the truth and we do not have to justify anything to such scum as Paul.

anon


Thanks anon

25.12.2008 22:15

I do agree wholeheartedly and promise not to fall for the bait again. Interestingly though Paul is "listening" in on me and others. Is he a stalker? Is he MI5? Am I being bugged? If so he and his pals must be having a really boring time of it hehehehe.
Anyway its Christmas I've eaten and drunk too much but I promise the security services something entertaining in the new year (just in case they are really bored) after all if I am ever charged with anything (not that I have done anything wrong) I KNOW how boring watching dvds of defendants doing nothing at all.

Lynn Sawyer


All good stuff

25.12.2008 23:38

This back slapping Ms saywer but you still have not addressed anything I have said. Do you answer each other just to make each other feel good? If what you say is true then it should be able to stand upto criticism?

When confronted with the truth you all insult instead of debunking... No wonder the movement is fuck if all it has got is you lot!

Paul


Lynn

26.12.2008 15:06

You will be fine in 2009 as you don't get your hands dirty - shame that you can't help yourself from encouraging the youngsters such as Lewis and Luke - they will be rotting in jail along with Dan and Gerrah - all a bit parasitic isn't it?

NETCU


Kidding yourselves

27.12.2008 13:28

Funny how various organisations have been set up and numerous new laws passed if the AR movement is dead, just as Keith Mann said on the TV recently, why bother if the establishment think the AR movement has been defeated I am sure the SS said the same thing to Hitler about the resistance movement in the war (thought they had won by abusing people but were defeated, as good wins over evil eventually). There is a solidarity in the AR movement whether we know each other personally or not,(I do not know Lyn personally but respect her for what she has suffered at the hands of a corrupt establishment and for what she has achieved) as we have common ground and compassionate natures, something that the sad losers who try to prevent us preventing cruelty will never understand or be priviledged to in a million years.

anon


NETCU

27.12.2008 13:56

NETCU - weren't you the ones who lost your handbook about how to deal with AR people, which was then put onto the internet a few months ago? Sounds like a great and efficient team!! How may GCSE's do you have between you all??

anon


Taking Liberties!

30.12.2008 14:51

Even though I do not condone the use of violence in campaigning, it is worth noting in the context that no tangible DIRECT evidence (for example forensic evidence) is usually linked to Animal Rights campaigners in the majority of court cases. No, often it is the case that merely guilt by proximity to a particular campaign is considered enough to convict activists, ragardless of whether they did the dirty deed or not.

This is not justice as we are led to believe it when we are at school, that is, a fair trial based upon carefully gathered evidence and each side arguing and justifying their position based upon the evidence available at the time. No, this is what some would call a "Kangaroo Court", no better than the 'justice' offered at Guantanamo Bay - circumstantial, prejudicial and inconclusive.

What some would call 'bad science'.

This should worry everyone who strongly believes in Civil Liberties and HUMAN RIGHTS.

But then, we are also talking about a country where our government has passed legislation to introduce compulsory Identity Cards for ALL citizens - currently foreign nationals are being used as an experimental group, and soon foreign students will join them. A country where we are monitored in our city centres 24 hours a day, seven days week by CCTV (were we consulted about this..? NO!), where even our movements in the virtual world are tracked, logged, and in some cases repackaged and sold back to us as 'profiled' spam and targeted advertising.

Even those who do not agree with the cause of Animal Rights and some of their tactics should be DEEPLY concerned about what the outcome of these kinds of so-called trials represent for the greater good of ALL UK citizens, and should not allow their judgements to be clouded by prejudices against particular groups.

This is an age old tactic, by the name of divide and rule, stretching back to the days of the Roman Empire - and further.

Keep everyone distracted and fighting amongst themselves, and while they're busy doing that, pen them in (by whatever means can be got away with at a given moment, be it legal, sympathetic manpower or actual physical boundaries, or maybe a combination of these) so they can be more easily controlled and observed, and then actively remove from society (again by whatever means) those individuals who are to considered by the ruling class to be threatening to their current status quo.

See who the REAL enemy is, and it isn't activists, whatever colours they nail to their posts.

For any of us out here in the the real world fighting our corner for so many different causes, we ALL need to be vigilant in these times, because the HLS/SHAC activists may well be the first of many politicial prisoners over the coming years.

A Nonny Mouse