Hidden Article

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

SHAC youth go on trial for reconnaissance.

Lincs AR | 29.04.2009 10:44 | Animal Liberation

A trial started yesterday in Lincoln Crown Court of 4 SHAC activists accused of conducting a recon at a rabbit breeder. Reporting restrictions were lifted.

Animal rights activists carried out a "reconnaissance" raid on a Lincolnshire rabbit farm with links to the Huntingdon Life Sciences research company, a jury was told.

The four arrived at Highgate Farm near Normanby by Spital, in the middle of the night on October 13 last year. After getting into the premises they quickly left, knowing they were being filmed on the farm's security system.

All four had links to the campaigning group SHAC - Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty - which listed Highgate Farm on its website as a potential target for "direct action".

Of the 4 one is 27, two are 18 and one a youth of 17. AR activists have expressed concern due to the relative youth of those accused.

Three of the 4 have pleaded guilty - the trial continues on the fourth

Lincs AR
Homepage: http://www.marketrasenmail.co.uk/news/Animal-rights-rabbit-farm-recce.5213439.jp

Comments

Hide 1 hidden comment or hide all comments

the charge...

29.04.2009 11:02

"The jury has been told that three men in the car have already admitted a charge of conspiracy to interfere with a contractual relationship so as to harm an animal research establishment."

Our obedience is their license

anon

Remove this

29.04.2009 11:12

Can this be removed please? It is a copy of an article in a local newspaper, only with the prosecution arguments stated as fact. This is likely to be another sinister post from subversive elements who wish to smear the SHAC and create hostility in the movement.

In the know

Why plead guilty then complain?

29.04.2009 11:42

Why do SHACtivists plead guilty to charges then complain when the news of their capitulation is published - if you dispute the 'prosecution arguments' then you plead NOT guilty!

Why?

Remove This = Censorship

29.04.2009 11:56

The news of this latest attempt to crush the AR movement is news to me! Why are certain elements trying to keep the news quiet? Or is the fact that 3 have pleaded guilty that is being clumsily suppressed?
The ages of those on trial appals me particularly as they should be the lifeblood of the movement for the future.
Why were they on such an action? What was hoped to be achieved?

News to me

Stupid report

29.04.2009 12:02

It reads like a joke:

"A trial started yesterday in Lincoln Crown Court of 4 SHAC activists accused of conducting a recon at a rabbit breeder. Reporting restrictions were lifted."

ACCUSED of conducting what, their freedom of thought?!

"Animal rights activists carried out a "reconnaissance" raid on a Lincolnshire rabbit farm with links to the Huntingdon Life Sciences research company, a jury was told."

Never mind the idea of being accused then...

"The four arrived at Highgate Farm near Normanby by Spital, in the middle of the night on October 13 last year. After getting into the premises they quickly left, knowing they were being filmed on the farm's security system."

This wasn't the case, they were pulled over and had AR literature in the car...

"Three of the 4 have pleaded guilty - the trial continues on the fourth"

They pleaded guilty to SOCPA Section 145, which means shit all in the context of pleading guilty to an actual 'crime'...

Section 145
Homepage: http://netcu.wordpress.com/2008/01/19/how-to-be-a-seriously-organised-animal-rights-criminal-section-145-socpa/

Eh? - Can this happen?

29.04.2009 12:16

So as far as I can see 4 people were pulled in a car NEAR a rabbit breeder that had once been raided by the ALF. They get charged with 'interfering with contractual relationships' because they had AR literature in the car - so far it would seem that there is on issue becaue there is no case BUT

3 of then PLEAD GUILTY - why on earth would you do that?

Is this the whole story?

WTF?

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

Yes this happens

29.04.2009 12:43

This is what the AR movement has been saying for a while now - this is what happens - now - in the UK.

As to their youth - don't be so patronising. Each is a committed activist who made their own decisions – they are willing to sacrifice their liberty for the animals – are you?

Looks like this is a bit of a wake up call.

Yes - This is the reality of the UK today

^^

29.04.2009 12:48

because at least 2 of them have been in prison since october waiting trial and the guilty plea gives them less time on the inside

anonymous

please remove this

29.04.2009 12:49

The fact of the matter is that this thread is being opposed not because of it's content, but because of who is posting it. Like the recent removed thread on a certain prisoner, this appears at the same time as it appears on a website that has a history of publishing lies, misinfomation, and insults on known activists. Indymedia should not be used to attack activists, nor should posts with the intention of creating rifts within the movement be tolerated.

Nobody is trying to keep this news secret. It is on google news for a start. It is also noted on the individual prisoner support pages, which are linked to from leading sites. It was noted nearly a month ago on prisoner support websites that they plead guilty.

SOCPA 145 is a political law, which makes legal activity criminal because of who it tries to effect.

The replies on the action, and on the law here are a matter of people commenting on an issue they know very little about. I suggest that people find more constructive things to do with their time then acting like gossiping old ladies on the internet.

Please Indymedia, remove this post. The authorities are using sinister tactics in regards to animal rights on Indymedia, perhaps the movement and Indymedia could work together to come to some sort of solution?

Respect.

In the know

Stop the guilty pleas.

29.04.2009 13:41

I also can't understand why anyone would plead guilty to section 145.

The "time off" you get for the guilty plea is minimal, and it damages both yourself and the movement.

Jerry Vlasaks scalpel.

It's on Google News ?

29.04.2009 13:51

So your excuse for not wanting this news on Indymedia is that it's on the mainstream media?

The real story here is not in a court in Lincs but on this board and it's about those who think they have a right to control what news people get to read.

The AR movement is happy to have marches, sit in's and actions on Indymedia but cries foul when subject to repression and then tries to censor the independent press

Google ?

Mainstream news isn't Indymedia news

29.04.2009 14:27

Never has been, never will be. Read the guideliens...

Articles and/or comments may be hidden for the following reasons:
*Inaccurate: posts that are inaccurate or misleading.
*Repeated: content that is reposted or text that was originally a comment posted as a report.

Also, Indymedia clearly states it is:

"A network of individuals, independent and alternative media activists and organisations, offering grassroots, NON-CORPORATE, NON-COMMERCIAL coverage of important social and political issues."

If you don't like the idea, then Indymedia quite simply isn't for you.
This post clearly shouldn't be here, it belong on the corporate body that spewed it out.

This isn't cencorship, this has already been posted, its duplicate misinformation -

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/04/426969.html

As for 'harming the movement' by people pleading guilty, never heard of pro-choice? If people want to plead guilty to get out earlier, without inditing others, then its their right to do so and you should respect their choice in the matter and support them regardless. It's certainly not your place to judge at all. If people want to fight SOCPA then so be it, if they don't then that's their choice. A doctrine of resistance is only authoritarian, thus fascist.

Get the facts before making comments, always helps!

end of

Hide 1 hidden comment or hide all comments