Comment on SHAC sentencing
anon | 04.02.2009 22:00 | Animal Liberation
Comment on SHAC sentencing
http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/news/Heather-s-life-animals/article-663320-detail/article.html?cacheBust=kJse5G4p1hVf#community
I DO not doubt Clive Rees's legal qualifications (Have Your Say, January 28), but I do doubt whether he is in possession of the facts of the case of my daughter's involvement in the (rather ambitious) campaign to close down Huntingdon Life Sciences, near Cambridge.
Perhaps Clive isn't particularly bothered about animal suffering — a lot of people aren't. My daughter, who really is a beautiful person, is upset when she learns about what is done to cats and dogs at Huntingdon Life Sciences. Yes, she was determined to help to close HLS, and the campaign did try to dissuade firms from dealing with the company.
She was not involved in the over-the-top tactics used by some zealots such as sending fake letter bombs through the post to HLS employees, telling their neighbours that the vivisectors were paedophiles, and painting abusive graffiti in streets.
When I asked her about it she swore to me that she did not even know who the people were who had done these things.
For several years, Heather and her colleagues have been taking advice from barristers on how to stay within the law in conducting their campaign, and they have striven to follow this advice.
"Heather's role in the main has been to organise peaceful demonstrations (often in consultation with the police and with their co-operation). She would hand out leaflets to passers-by, and accept donations from many ordinary people who shared her concern about what goes on behind closed doors of a vivisection laboratory. She has no misgivings about anything that she has done in this campaign.
She has been found guilty of "conspiracy to blackmail". The judge said to her that, simply by association, she was guilty of "conspiracy".
Heather pleaded not guilty because she was adamant that she had done nothing wrong. Some of her friends pleaded guilty because they were advised to do so in order to get a third knocked off the sentence.
I believe this case has been orchestrated by the Government, the Crown Prosecution Service, the police and the court system in a desperate attempt to put these vigorous and determined campaigners behind bars.
George Barwick.
http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/news/Heather-s-life-animals/article-663320-detail/article.html?cacheBust=kJse5G4p1hVf#community
I DO not doubt Clive Rees's legal qualifications (Have Your Say, January 28), but I do doubt whether he is in possession of the facts of the case of my daughter's involvement in the (rather ambitious) campaign to close down Huntingdon Life Sciences, near Cambridge.
Perhaps Clive isn't particularly bothered about animal suffering — a lot of people aren't. My daughter, who really is a beautiful person, is upset when she learns about what is done to cats and dogs at Huntingdon Life Sciences. Yes, she was determined to help to close HLS, and the campaign did try to dissuade firms from dealing with the company.
She was not involved in the over-the-top tactics used by some zealots such as sending fake letter bombs through the post to HLS employees, telling their neighbours that the vivisectors were paedophiles, and painting abusive graffiti in streets.
When I asked her about it she swore to me that she did not even know who the people were who had done these things.
For several years, Heather and her colleagues have been taking advice from barristers on how to stay within the law in conducting their campaign, and they have striven to follow this advice.
"Heather's role in the main has been to organise peaceful demonstrations (often in consultation with the police and with their co-operation). She would hand out leaflets to passers-by, and accept donations from many ordinary people who shared her concern about what goes on behind closed doors of a vivisection laboratory. She has no misgivings about anything that she has done in this campaign.
She has been found guilty of "conspiracy to blackmail". The judge said to her that, simply by association, she was guilty of "conspiracy".
Heather pleaded not guilty because she was adamant that she had done nothing wrong. Some of her friends pleaded guilty because they were advised to do so in order to get a third knocked off the sentence.
I believe this case has been orchestrated by the Government, the Crown Prosecution Service, the police and the court system in a desperate attempt to put these vigorous and determined campaigners behind bars.
George Barwick.
anon
Comments
Display the following 4 comments