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
Hide the following 4 comments
Compassion
04.02.2009 22:51
anon
An over the top sentence but....
04.02.2009 23:32
In the early days of SHAC I knew several people who had signed up to the SHAC mailing list and when they got the newsletter were shocked at how militant and aggressive it was. I wish I'd kept a copy so I could illustrate but I got rid of them all as I thought they were dodgy to keep in my house.
Anon, before you say it, you are pathetic to call me and others 'trolls' for simply having a different opinion. The fact is that a lot of people in the AR movement have become sick of the SHAC method of 'by any means necessary'. It has helped the vivisection scum by giving them the propaganda of 'your with us or the terrorists'. The SHAC style aggressive tactics have pushed rational people out of the movement and in the 10 years I've been involved have seen the movement shrink and shrink and demos become smaller and smaller.
Not a troll - before you say it Anon
RE:not a troll...
05.02.2009 12:43
--SHAC did do this when it was legal, when protesting outside the homes of these people was legal.
shac acted to give direction to where legal protests should take place such as to be effective.
"The SHAC campaign made no bones about being an aggressive campaign 'Deal with HLS, deal with us' has always been the motto and it worked because of what SHAC activists would do whether it was under the SHAC name or ALF, etc."
--it worked, no one got hurt, so well done SHAC
"The SHAC style aggressive tactics have pushed rational people out of the movement and in the 10 years I've been involved have seen the movement shrink and shrink and demos become smaller and smaller."
--You cant blame the SHAC style for this, at the end of the day all movments have shrunk, the number of political activists on protests has shrunk on almost all sides not just animal rights.
Remember no campaign has ever been won without the use of direct action, and tbh my opinion is that what theese people are responsible for, not only to animals, but to humans and the enviroment is unforgivable and they must be stopped, so what if some director of bayer gets his car paint stripped, he is happily working for a company that built its profits out the horrors of nazi concentration camps!
and in reply to the troll comment, you have to remember a huge percentage of negative comments are posted by the police as they are trying to divide our movement, so its not suprising if occasionally the wrong person is accused of being a troll. at the end of the day im fed up with so many armchair activists who do nothing slagging of other campaigns. you may or may not fall into this catagory if you do your opinions to me are worthless its very easy to be a critique, its harder to do it yourself.
stevediscombeisatwat
anons
05.02.2009 13:08
anon