Because of SHAC

The one undeniable success SHAC can claim is the vilification of whole AR movement. Giving our opponents ample excuses to deflect the debate to exhumation, paedophile letters, vandalism and night time visits.

Yes - well done SHAC

The 50 years in jail SHAC have achieved - the tragedy is that there are still more people to be sent down.
Those who should know better are still encouraging youngsters to join this train wreck of a campaign.

Piss off SHACwatch, the fact you even care about SHAC proves SHAC is on to something.

I see the first two posts are by NETCU sympathisers, haven't you got rabbits to be shooting so you can hurl them at peaceful campers at night?

I'm sure after that you can follow it up with a light spot of fox hunting or maybe a Saturday afternoon dissection on an innocent rat or dog?

I agree with the first two posts. They could be 'trolls' or Nectu but lots of people in the AR movement feel this way including myself about SHAC. My guess is they are AR people sick of SHAC and these kinds of campaigns.

Look at AR demos recently. They're attracting a fraction of the numbers from a few years ago. SHAC have not closed HLS. In fact vivisection in this country is higher than ever. The SHAC spin on HLS' finances is questionable. For years SHAC have been predicting the closure of HLS if only we can get rid of this customer, that bank, that shareholder, yet HLS carry on abusing/killing thousands of animals. My question about HLS is this. Are HLS killing/torturing less animals today than when SHAC started? If the answer is 'no' then has the campaign failed?

The first few years of SHAC had a wild drive of 'we are going to do this' but now it seems SHAC are just going through the motions of a few demos here and there with no end in sight.

Here's what I propose. We bring SHAC to an end and start a new huge anti vivisection campaign bringing together a coaltion of groups. We follow the conduct of the SPEAK campaign and don't resort to undignified tactics. You only have to do a street stall once to see how many of the general public are against vivisection. It's huge yet these campaigns are tiny. The public are not the enemy. We need numbers on our side.

>> "I agree with the first two posts. They could be 'trolls' or Nectu but lots of people in the AR movement feel this way including myself about SHAC. My guess is they are AR people sick of SHAC and these kinds of campaigns."

You could be right, but this is no single issue. There are pacifists in every movement who are sick of the militant edge, the insurgents and those who generally break the law to save lives (not that shactivists do, but SHAC support the ALF who are famous for doing so).

Examples; womens councils vs suffragettes, black panthers vs moderate civil rights groups, STWC vs Smash EDO, greenpeace vs sea shepherd, just to name a few.

Does it matter? Not what so ever as long as lives are being saved. As long as activists don't bow down to pacifist wishes (non-confrontational indirect action) and continue to do what works best (confrontational and militant direct action) then everything will work out.

Recommended reading: Pacifism as Pathology / How Non-Violence Protects The State.

>> "Look at AR demos recently. They're attracting a fraction of the numbers from a few years ago."

There are few points to recognise here:

1. SHAC demos have always been small numbers and still are.
2. Demos (generally) are in decline due to state repression, pacifism, rise in ignorance, etc.
3. SHAC hasn't been effected by points 1. and 2., unlike most campaigns.

>> "SHAC have not closed HLS. In fact vivisection in this country is higher than ever."

You seem to think that once a campaign has a solution to make change, that over night everything will just fall into place? It takes years to make change, sometimes decades.

>> "The SHAC spin on HLS' finances is questionable. For years SHAC have been predicting the closure of HLS if only we can get rid of this customer, that bank, that shareholder, yet HLS carry on abusing/killing thousands of animals."

SHAC didn't realise that the government would step in and supply banking and insurance facilities to keep HLS open - for the first time in UK history - due to the campaigns success.

>> "My question about HLS is this. Are HLS killing/torturing less animals today than when SHAC started? If the answer is 'no' then has the campaign failed?"

Let me guess, you leaflet for a living? Are less animals killed and tortured today then when you started? If the answer is 'no', then your campaign has failed aswell.

Reality: Animal abuse is on the rise in general if you hadn't notice and in every area is more profitable because of an increased demand for this torture. Here's where vivisection infact differs, vivisection is much much less profitable today than years/decades ago. HLS used to be making millions every week, they are now millions in debt making nothing. You have to make an industry less profitable before you can reduce it's size, it's the laws of economics.

>> "The first few years of SHAC had a wild drive of 'we are going to do this' but now it seems SHAC are just going through the motions of a few demos here and there with no end in sight."

Sorry? SHAC IS a wild drive of 'we never give in & we always win'. That slogan's still going strong if you hadn't noticed. As for a 'few demos here and there', I guess you haven't checked  http://www.shac.net recently? There are demos across the country and the globe. In 2008 there were more demos than in 2007, SHAC are on the rise if you hadn't noticed.

>> "Here's what I propose... start a new huge anti vivisection campaign bringing together a coaltion of groups."

You mean, go back to the 1980s? Vivisection was on the rise then though wasn't it?

Maybe that's what we should of done to stop the war as well? Get a coalition together, something like stop the war coalition, and get millions of people onto the streets of London?

Oh wait, my bad, that already happened and it did fuck all.

>> "We follow the conduct of the SPEAK campaign and don't resort to undignified tactics."

But that goes against your theory. They are killing animals today when they previously weren't before, so surely the SPEAK campaign has failed by your own standards?

>> "You only have to do a street stall once to see how many of the general public are against vivisection. It's huge yet these campaigns are tiny."

You only have to do a street stall once to see how few people come over to it, unlike how in the past many of the general public used to show support. Yes those who come over are against vivisection - but you have to realise they only come over to your stall to show support.

Furthermore, more people are spoon fed the lies from big pharma that vivisection saves lives, it's reliable and without it drugs wouldn't be on the market and we'd all die. So infact these days less people are anti-vivisection and I'd guess more people are pro-vivisection (just).

Fortunately this hasn't been a problem for the SHAC campaign, but I imagine has been for people doing stalls against vivisection etc. Please realise that any effective campaign is going to be repressed and is going to have a mouthpiece against it in an attempt to divide and conquer a movement. It's a shame how you fell for their tactics and do there job for them.

>> "The public are not the enemy. We need numbers on our side."

Everyone knows the public are not the enemy and we need numbers on our side, but you are ignoring the most obvious point ever:

Less people care about protesting day by day. They feel that it's either doing nothing (like most protests do) or that it's too repressive (like the effective campaigns that work are).

Why do you think the state repress SHAC and other effective campaigns. For shits and giggles or because they want to turn activists away from it? Have you never considered that SHAC is a genuine threat to industry and the state?

Seriously though - wake up! You want millions of people to march against vivisection and for the government to say "ok, fair enough, I hear you. We'll do what you want". It didn't happen for the Iraq war even with the majority against it and it won't happen for any other causes.

How naive are you, seriouly.

Your comment makes me feel ill, similar to how pacifism used to make me feel.

Well yes HLS is still open and so clearly SHAC have so far failed to close them. However as ex-pacifist said no one could have predicted that they would be bailed out in ways never seen before in any industry. Added to which there have been many unexpected victories along the way:

The Girton primate lab was scrapped primarily due to security fears surrounding nearby SHAC protests at HLS and in the Cambridge area in general.

Many of the largest airlines involved in transporting lab animals stopped due to the SHAC campaign, with some going as far as to stop the transport or ANY animal for exploitation.

Out of the hundreds of companies who have dropped HLS - many have vowed not to deal with ANY lab now or in the future.

SHAC have dominated media headlines for the last decade and have drawn many new activists. The problem with dying numbers is not due to SHAC, it is due to other activists being too scared to do street stalls, flypost do local demos and hold local meetings and generally advertise their presence. Of course people won't get active if they don't know how to find you! SHAC on the other hand have consistently held street stalls, and have always had a strong support base, making it very easy for people to get active. Why do you think SHAc is the only grass roots campaign to have spread globally - with over 20 countries taking action every year?

As for street stalls - I have done plenty and the only time support dipped was briefly after the Gladys incident. Other than that we have always had loads of support, and if anything now we have more people coming up and taking about vivisection fraud on a scientific level - the message is getting out there.

In relation to HLS finances etc.. have a look at their 2nd quarter report on their website (www.lsrinc.net). How many times do you read the word "down"? And if they were a profitable company they would not have to make a dodgy deal with their CEO to become private.

To put it simply, HLS are still open because YOU have not done enough to close them.

I am not a pacifist, why should I be? Very few people deny that the use of force in certain circumstances is maybe the only way to save a life or stop serious harm coming to an innocent. I believe that it is acceptable for someone to defend themselves and indeed others using violence along with the vast majority of the public. Imagine an elderly man getting mugged, the muggers are beating him and someone steps in and wallops one of them, personally I have no problem with that. No doubt someone will say "why not call the police?", well yes that is why they exist but they may be a while, the elderly man is in immediate danger and the police when they arrive are going to use violence anyway.

If we were as violent as the police and vivisectors were to other humans we would have smashed in house doors, males would have forced females to stand naked, others would have been violently assaulted, limbs broken, heads smashed and those present kidnapped or unlawfully arrested. Imagine the fuss if 5 animal rights activists locked up a police officer for 8 hours but unlawful arrests are a commonplace tactic used against all activists and have no more basis in law than if a few of us went out and kidnapped someone. Yes we do get compensated financially by the Chief Constable but really the officers responsible should face criminal charges. By the way I would not advocate that anyone lowered themselves to the level of the police or their masters in the labs.

If we were as violent as hunters and live exporters we would have killed quite a few people.

Now if we were as violent to vivisectors as they were to their victims we would not only kidnap them but we would torture them as well. Gouging out eyes, burning, scalding, poisoning, slashing and eventually murdering. No-one that I know of has for example taken a baby away from its mother to coldly sew its eyelids together, play heavy rock music 24/7 and sit back and enjoy watching the suffering.

Animal rights acivists violent? Mere amateurs compared to vivisectors and police. But then I suppose when you go along with a definition of "violence" which incorporates shouting, banner waving, liberations and property damage for one group and a definition of "non-violence" which incorporates smashing limbs and a policy of kidnap for the opposing group then there are bound to be problems.

My definition of violence is causing physical harm to a person and best avoided if possible.It is not shouting "puppy killers" at those who spend their working day killing puppies or smashing up a steotaxic device made to hold a victim still whilst being experimented on.In act call me soppy but I have no desire to hurt anyone unless it is absolutely necessary, I would not instigate violence. I have recieved threats, had my property smashed up and my body smashed up by the enemy and I know what actual violence entails and it is not a few slashed tyres or men in black shades peering through the letter box or empty threats to kill me. or junk mail in fact thanks HLS nice Boden catalogues btw.

There is nothing at all stopping you from starting your own campaign with likeminded individuals. Just post up the demo dates when you are ready and many people, myself included, will support you and respect the way in which you wish to run your campaign. If you are effective, however, do not expect any mercy from the police state, have stamina and do not give in. If you do not like SHAC do something bigger and better.

If you think you can do better Rocker why aren't you out on the streets setting up your own campaign? If you think you've got what it takes to bring an end to animal cruelty why aren't you out there now organising? Apathy in the face of state repression is not an option.

Just remember that the moment your peaceful campaign makes any gains the police will be waiting to kick your door in at 4am, just remember that you'll be stripped naked and humiliated by officers as they ransack your house, and just remember that you'll be hauled before the courts on conspiracy to blackmail simply for daring to organise peaceful demonstrations with a few friends.

It not a case of peaceful campaigns get left alone whilst supposedly violent ones get the crap kicked out of them. The animal abuse industry doesn't differentiate between peace and violence, if you dare to harm their profits they will go out of their way to cause harm to you. They will attempt to make your life misery from the word go.

It goes for any industry that profits from raping the earth and shitting on its inhabitants, if you stand in their way they'll attempt to run you down full steam ahead. Pacifist Climate Campers learned that in London recently when they set up tents in the street and held banners, they weren't being violent or provocative yet the police waited for an opportune moment to baton charge them responding to peaceful protest with rage and violence.

Good luck with your peaceful campaign, but remember... an industry that profits from death will never differentiate between peace and violence.

All animal welfare organisations - none violent - none having their members imprisoned!

There is a clear alternative Pacifist - and it isn't anything to do with efficacy - it's to do with ego, power and money.

You choose.

That no one in prison is a member of PeTA, Uncaged or the RSPCA?

And you still haven't changed the spelling of "until" on your blog.

Ever considered it's because they're all shit campaigns?

Uncaged beg government to stop everything using the latest EDM.
PeTA campaign for non-humans to have fluffy toys before they die.
RSPCA make money out of killing non-humans.

The state want everyone to:

Beg instead of protest, so Uncaged are doing them a favour.
Be animal welfarists, so PeTA are doing them a favour.
Consume corpses, so RSPCA are doing them a favour.

If I started an EDM for non-humans to live two weeks longer before being murdered and decided to make money out of it I wouldn't be seeing repression either!

On the other hand, any abolitionist direct action and the state will repress you.

Every other campaign is crap and their supporters nothing better than ‘collaborators’ - only SHAC have the answer and it’s not SHAC’s fault they have failed – it’s all a big conspiracy.

Tiresome.

...none of these comments have come from SHAC, so you can't really say that they represent the views of SHAC as an organisation.

SHAC have always supported other campaigns - and most of those involved feel that animal liberation will only be won through a diverse array of tactics and groups. SHAC activists have taken part in protests and actions for many other groups, from Uncaged and PeTA to Smash EDO and Climate Camp. SHAC street stalls always have literature and information from other campaigns and have always been happy to work in conjunction with other groups - just have a look at the links page on the SHAC website and you will see a plethora of other groups listed ( http://www.shac.net/links/links.html).

In the SHAC blackmail trial the judge acknowledged that SHAC was a lawful campaign, but those involved in the conspiracy operated outside of the mantle of SHAC in an illegal manner.

It has always been the view of those involved in SHAC that if the time ever comes when it is clear the campaign will lose then it will be halted and a new campaign will begin. However that is not the case, as HLS' financials are down and they have been forced into becoming a private company which has significantly weakened them. To give up now would be ridiculous, as every action taken in the last 10 years have consistently weakened HLS and so far they have not managed to make any kind of recovery - they have been balancing on the precipice of closure for a very long time, and whilst so far they have managed to sidestep along the brink, at some point they will fall - unless the pressure is removed and then they will be able to return to being a profitable company.

You say that SHAC keep stating that losing 'this one company' will shut HLS. This as not been said many times, but here is the times it has been said:

"If HLS lose their insurance they cannot stay open". HLS lost Marsh as their insurers, and they would have shit, but the Government made the unprecedented move of giving them insurance (a service they have since refused to provide for any other company).

"If HLS lose their loan from NatWest they cannot stay open". HLS lost this loan and were hours from closure (some news channels had actually reported they had closed) before Stephens Inc stepped in and bailed them out.

"If HLS lose their loan from Stephens Inc they cannot stay open". They lost this loan, but a new company have stepped in and bailed them out. This company have breached several laws to remain anonymous, and research continues to ascertain their identity.

"If HLS lose their bank they cannot stay open." Again the Government made the unprecedented step of giving them banking through the Bank of England. HLS are the only company in the world to bank with them.

Other than that targets have been selected that will weaken HLS' position, and tat has consistently succeeded. As it stands, financial insiders have informed the campaign that HLS losing 2 large customers will shut them. This is born out in their 2nd quarter report, as well as in the terms of the Baker buyout.

You say that SHAC have failed - but name me one other campaign in any area that has had the same kind of effect on any other multinational company that SHAC has had on HLS. Name just one.

Mr Justice Butterfield said: 'You cloaked your activities in what was a hypocritical sham pretence that Shac was a vehicle for legitimate lawful protest. It was nothing of the sort. "

You didn't fool him - you are not fooling us.

As an ex SHAC campaigner who has spent time in prison due to SHAC underhandedness I can say that I'm not the only person to fall pray of this campaign. No loyalty what ever.

I will also remind others that SHAC is not the movement and many sound victories have come about is spite of them.

The ban on hunting was due to main stream none violent, respectable campaigns.

My observations about this thread, for what they're worth.

Any movement that seeks change must tackle it from many different angles, a single approach will never work. I find it difficult to understand how we can all criticise each others methods. Direct action, leafleting, marches, e-mail & letter writing, information stalls, fundraising, or any other method for that matter may not be your choice, but that doesn't make it wrong.

I don't blame the lack of public support on direct action. I blame it on the apathy of human beings to the suffering of others, be they human or non-human. I was talking to colleagues at work about being Vegan, and how much easier it is than you think. One person replied "Its easy for you because of your strong believes in the rights of animals. For the rest of us who like the taste of meat ....". And people don't like the concept of vivisection until they think it may relief the symptoms of their cold. And whilst they may not go greyhound racing they don't really care if 10,000's of animals are injured or killed. Because it doesn't affect them. Apathy is the common theme.

The people who say they don't support AR because of the 'nutcases', their words not mine, wouldn't get involved anyway. Finding an excuse just makes it easier to justify to themselves why they do nothing. The same people wouldn't do anything about opposing war and lets be honest the perception of anti-war protestors is about as fluffy as it gets (no disrespect intended). And people use the same logic for not donating to charity. When I've put in a street collection I've been disappointed by a friend who said "Why did you do that. how do you know where that money will end up? Probably in their pocket." Maybe he was right, but maybe it will end up doing some good. My point, albeit the long way around is, lets not kid ourselves that our actions may put people off. If they want to get involved they will. In reality, most people will spend time justifying to themselves why they won't bother doing anything, when that time and energy could be put to more use.

Direct-action saves lives and/or makes it difficult for those involved in animal abuse\torture and in some cases causes them to re-think their involvement. I can express the admiration I have for those that risk their freedom in the name of animal rights.

Leafleting, information stalls, marches are useful forms of educating and informing the general public.

E-mail & letter writing or petitioning lets those in government\the abuse industries know that there are people who give a sh!t about what they're doing. And lets be honest many who are involved at that level wouldn't attend a protest, but they still play a part.

Fundraising supports political prisoners, rescue centres, animals shelters and activists who do a damn sight more than I do (to my shame).

To conclude my witterings, we all play a part in this battle and lets not lose sight of the fact that it is those that have no voice that we are fighting for. Lets not waste energy fighting each other.

If someone wishes to play their part in the struggle by writing polite letters brilliant, so what if it is getting EDMs signed, or informing companies about the horrors of what they are involved with. But beware polite letter writers are arrested, they make it easy you see by putting name and address on the top of the page. Honesty, integrity and openess have their price. In fact Uncaged members holding a LEGAL street stall have been arrested so let us not pretend that the police are any sort of barometer of morality. Without the army of letter writers (many of whom may be elderly, or carers, or just people who wish to take that course of action for whatever reason) campaigns everywhere would fail.

I do not wish to slag off animal welfare groups. In fact I spent an afternoon recently at the Dogs Trust in Harefield and I was incredibly impressed by this facility. They even had a house in which dogs that were well nigh impossible to rehome lived in with workers caring for them in a home setting night and day. A lot of the RSPCA heirarchy are barstads but the average volunteer and some of the inspectors are caring individuals who make a huge difference. As with everything else though providing care for the countless victims whilst vital does not challenge why there are victims, it is not dangerous to the state, in fact the RSPCA prosecutes, it is part of the state! How mad is that? The taxpayer already pays for a police force and courts and is then supposed to cough up for a charity to prosecute crimes against animals! What about if a vivisector goes into a police station and says "help my car has been blown up" and the police turn around and say "sorry sir no can do, here is the number of Understanding Animal Research, they'll investigate it and when they've done our job for us we'll arrest the blighters, now piss off it's tea break". No the state does not wish to crush animal welfare groups, practically the entire country believes in "animal welfare" by degrees and most would probably have no problem with violence against badger baiters, or dog fighters, or those who make snuff films by ripping kittens apart. Advocating as a belief that non human animals are of the same worth as human animals is a very different matter, this is heresy a basic kindness towards other species is not. Anyway, remember Austria? Campaigning for the successful abolition of battery cages (hardly extreme) led to a brutal crackdown on entirely peaceful campaigners. Effectiveness against the powerful will always come at a cost to those who are changing things.
Those criticising SHAC may have genuine greivances, SHAC is not perfect but SHAC consists of many ordinary folk peacefully and legally holding demos and stalls, writing letters, etc. Those who want nothing to do with SHAC should do something else, quite simple really and CONSTRUCTIVE criticism is never a bad thing.

"Ex-prisoner" - don't insult real ex/current prisoners by pretending anyone has ended up in prison for animal rights by doing anything other than what they felt was right. No one has been tricked or coerced into breaking the law - those that do so act of their own volition. Your as much an ex-prisoner as I am Cilla Black.

Fox hunting has been banned, but it still continues. Hunt sabs have also continued to save lives by acting inside of the law and outside of the law where necessary. Mink farming was banned due to ALF activity. As any real activist will tell you, it takes many paths to reach our destination.

And unsurprisingly you haven't answered my very simple question - name one multinational company as effected by any campaign in any field as HLS has been by SHAC. I await your answer with interest - but I won't hold my breath.

Ah yes the ban on hunting which is an utter piece of junk legislation that will be torn up the next time the Tories get into power? Which will no doubt be the next general election. The ban on fox hunting has done little to nothing to protect foxes, the hunts are still out there hunting. So what if they don't deliberately use dogs to rip the fox to shreds now? Whether they use a gun or a bird of prey matters not to an innocent fox that has its life cruelly ripped from it. A welfarist approach is utter tripe, if they truly cared about the foxes they'd get the whole lot banned.

People can deride SHAC as much as they like but it is thanks to them that banks, insurance companies, and hundreds of customers/suppliers will no longer deal in animal abuse at Huntingdon. It is thanks to pressure from SHACtavists that many airlines will no longer fly animals that are destined for vivisection. How many vivisection breeders in this country have been closed by fluffy peaceful campaigns of writing letters to MPs? The answer is none! Oxford University Park Farm, Regal Rabbits, Sky Commercial Rabbit Farm, Shamrock farm, Consort Beagles, Hylyne Rabbits and Hillgrove Cat Farm, all closed because of intense pressure from protests and direct action. If you think vivisection suppliers and animal testing facilities give a crap about disgruntled letters to the Guardian and the lobying MPs then you are simply living in a fantasy land. The only way to target these scummy companies is head on, you have to hit them hard. Once you damage their public image through direct protests, coupled with loosing them suppliers and customers the end is inevitable.

It's all well and good supporting fluffy campaigns on the side, but the animals don't have 60 years to wait for legislation that might give them an extra 20cm's of space or a wheel to run on. There is hundreds of thousands of them locked away right now awaiting torture as household cleaners and commercial pesticides are dripped into their eyes and throats. What good is welfarism, when they're still going to get tortured regardless?

If you think the RSPCA is interested in halting animal abuse then think again! They have no objection to vivisection, and they even run their own animal abusing business on the side known as RSPCA: Freedom foods which has been exposed as nothing more than a glorified sham!

So continue to support the fluffy campaigns on the side, write to newspapers and MPs. But don't you ever give up on the animals who are locked up at this very moment. They don't have the option of hanging on for another 60 years, from the moment they're born the clock is ticking until the inevitable scalpel incision is made. You might have the luxury of liberty, but the animals do not. Stand up for their rights to live, so what if the state kicks you in the shins every now and then? This is about something bigger than yourself! This is about giving liberty to those who are facing a life of torture, this is about giving liberty to those facing a death sentence!

If you think you can run a better campaign then do so! Get out there and find your local breeder or lab, get some people together and organise a campaign! Nobody is stopping you, nobody is saying all you can do is what SHAC says, the more pressure that is mounted on the vivisection industry the better. But if you truly care about the animals and you truly wish to liberate them from torture, don't you dare sit on your arse and think that writing your MP or signing a petition is going to change anything!

You think an industry that profits from abuse, murder, and torture gives a toss about the occasional letter? They spend their daily lives bleaching rats and rabbits eyes, a letter isn't going to phase them.

There is no place in this world for apathy when others less fortunate than yourselves are being slaughtered. Everyone gets disheartened sometimes, but for the sake of the animals don't wallow... Organise!

You are absolutely right SHAC is not the AR movement. It is one of many campaigns.

As for the "ban" on hunting. Don't know if you have noticed but it isn't working. 150 years of lobbying Parliament, playing by the rules led to a law so riddled with loopholes that to secure a charge means that unless there is film footage of hounds actively hunting a fox, deer, stag or mink with the hunted animal and hounds in the frame being actively encouraged by the huntsman/hunt followers, then you are screwed. Actually getting the footage means being in exactly the right place at the right time (logistics, weather, lens caps, battery running down etc) which is a bit difficult even without 15 landrovers full of "lads" who enjoy smashing up cameras and those wielding them almost as much as ripping up animals. All this is bad enough but then the police come along and decide that trying to film the crime of hunting live animals is either "harassment", or "aggravated trespass" because the hunt tells them that they are hunting legally and they are dense enough to fall for it. Strange that they don't usually adopt this policy "Did you just break that window?" to man in hoodie standing by smashed window who answers "No", "Alright then,bye".

I was actually arrested and charged with Aggravated Trespass section 69 CJA 1994 for trying to film a hunt earlier this year. The police have stated that as they did not actually see a fox and cos the hunt says that they were hunting legally that they believe them. As someone with 28 years of experience in the hunting field first as a hunter then as a sab' I know the difference between hunting a live animal and hunting a trail, many including the dimwits who "police" hunts and indeed those who follow the hunt would not have a clue. Court case should be fun in October. Interestingly Operation Rumble (who are involved in policing SPEAK) have taken on brown nosing the hunts as well as Oxford University, cosy little chats are going on between ACPO and leading hunt figures as reported in Horse and Hound just days before my arrest. NETCU state in the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Policing and Protests 2009 that Rumble are key on training cops to deal with animal rights activists, they will I believe come down hard on sabs and monitors alike this season.

And so overcoming the difficulty of being in the right place at the right time, with a working camera, no lens cap on, no driving rain, a nice shot of the huntsman encouraging the hounds onto the line of a fox who also appears in shot AND loads of heavies who want to kill you, AND the police you get your footage. Well done, now you have to show it to the police the ones who want to arrest you because the hunt says you are a paedo because you are filming where children are present (even if they are 15, 6 feet tall and trying to strangle you). A short aside, supposing I filmed children (they might be quite big, I might not even know that they are children) kicking in someones head in a park, that person dies, would the police decline the footage on the grounds that no-one should EVER film children? In fact if we take this to its logical conclusion anyone wanting to commit a crime should just shield themselves with a child if being filmed, it works for those breaching the Hunting Act why not bank robberies? Hell riot cops could bring toddlers to work and use them as sheilds instead and then justify arrests on people filming their worst excesses by saying that were protecting the kiddies from perverts, it's an idea! Major digression, sorry, but even with the footage the CPS will not touch it as it is "not in the public interest". Someone like LACS or IFAW might bring about a private prosecution which then leads to a fine. So you spend a vast amount of time and effort and money, risk a serious beating and arrest just so someone can get in the best case scenario a small fine. What an achievement after 150 years of hard, arduous slog!!!

We actually caught Otis Ferry illegally hunting a few years ago. The footage showed clearly hounds marking a fox to ground in a ditch in an arable field (ie nowhere near gamebirds). We filmed the terriers going in and subsequently the terrierman having more sense than Otis abandon the dig out due to our presence. Stupidly we went to the police, they strung us along, did not prosecute then even used the fact that we knew one another as evidence of "conspiracy" as part of the evidence at the Sequani trial.

The Hunting Act is a prime example of why we are fighting for total liberation not token gestures. By the way hunt saboteurs were instrumental in fighting hunting, without the footage shot by sabs in the field and as infiltrators the public would never have seen the true horrors of hunting.

Why is it that whenever a post that is out of step with the SHAC orthodoxy appears, the writer is called a troll or NETCU? A couple of months ago someone I know was labelled a troll when he dared to be critical of another post. He has been an AR activist for years.

I understand that there are comments from trolls and state agencies trying to spread misinformation to lower morale, but surely each one should be judged on its own merits.

Just for the record, this article contains a number of inaccuracies. Firstly HLS's debt is 72 million dollars not pounds. This is indeed a lot of money but set against this they made a profit of £33 million last year (this appears in the latest edition of 'Animal Defender') and they apparently want to make a huge increase in the number of monkeys they use to 700. To me this does not suggest a company on the verge of collapse.

Over the course of the last 10 years we have been told many times by SHAC that all that is required is 'one more heave' and HLS will go. I can remember Heather Nicholson saying at a London Animal Action meeting in 2002 that if the campaign against Marsh was successful, HLS would have to close because it would have no insurance. Well Marsh did pull out but we all know what happened next.

HLS did come near to oblivion in January 2001 when - according to press reports - it was within 48 hours of going into receivership before the loan from Stephens was found. I don't know anyone today who would say it won't last 48 months. Yes this isn't a vigorous, successful company about to break into the FTSE100. Yes it does have real problems - but equally it is not teetering on the brink of bankruptcy.

It isn't strictly true to say all the $72 million has to be paid back by 2011 either - it can be refinanced. The last time this was done in 2006 the new deal was on terms more favourable than the old one. The share price has dropped this year too but 10 years ago the shares were worth just a few pence each and yet the company still survived.

Speaking of the loan, do we know who made it? Surely the company who has given HLS this lifeline should be targeted yet I have never seen their name mentioned. Likewise the 'two major contracts' lost recently - who were they with?

I wish I could say that the end of HLS was near but there is every reason to suppose the government would bail it out again were it to get into really dire straits once more. This is more likely now than ever before because we now live in an era of state intervention as witnessed by the bank bailouts worth billions last year. By contrast the amount required to keep LSR/HLS afloat - say $72 million if the loan was recalled - would be trivial.

About four or five years ago the British and US governments made a decision that the closure of HLS would be one victory too far for the AR movement. New laws were drawn up, old ones used more oppressively and massive investigations launched - Operation Achilles involved over 700 police officers and support staff.

SHAC will be 10 years old at the end of 2009 and it is often overlooked that there was a group before that called Huntingdon Death Sciences which had brought HLS to its knees - in fact the editorial in the first edition of the SHAC Newsletter said that HLS might not survive anyway even without a campaign against it. When SHAC predicted they would destroy HLS within three years everyone, myself included, saw no reason to doubt them.

It is easy to say this with hindsight but the reality is that the decision to target a company instead of another family run business - say a lab animal breeder - was a step too far. Greg, Heather and Natasha could have opted for another breeder but instead they chose the largest contract testing lab in Europe. I can remember sitting next to Greg at an Animal Rights Coalition meeting in 2003 when he admitted that HLS was chosen in preference to a breeder to deliberately raise the stakes. Of course the AR movement at the time was getting dizzy with success thanks to the closure of Consort, Hillgrove, Shamrock, Regal, etc, and many people imagined this would just go on and on. I can recall some even predicting all animal experiments would end in Britain within a matter of a few years.

Now 10 years later not only has vivisection not ended but the number of animals used has risen year on year and is at its highest for nearly 20 years. In addition we have laws being used against us the like of which we would not have believed possible then, morale has collapsed and the numbers taking part in many protests has decreased dramatically.

I know I am probably going to be called a troll or something else derogatory for writing this but nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see HLS go out of business. I have been a political activist for 28 years and my first arrest was in 1982 at a protest outside HLS - or Huntingdon Research Centre as it was known then. 700 of us marched seven miles from Huntingdon to the lab and held a demo in which the fence was pulled down and people climbed over. I was one of about 20 arrested and received a £30 fine and a bind over for criminal damage.

The sad truth is that were a similar march to be organised now there would be less people on it and there would be lines of police protecting the lab as well as security fences. Most likely people would just stand there chanting but were anyone to try to break in or pull down the fence they would face much more serious charges and possibly even a custodial sentence if convicted. These are the times we are going through…

Steve Discombe; don't insult the animal rights movement by pretending you are anything other than an internet mouth piece. Greg Avery sacrificed activists, even Natasha fell foul of Greg and Natasha. Willing is not the issue, collateral damage is... Have you smelt suffering? Ever heard suffering? I doubt very much. You are an armchair shithead who thinks they know it all.

Lynn, WTF? Why do you have to turn it into YOU all the time? It's nothing to do with people, it's everything to do with animal suffering! The hunt ban is a start in the right direction, SHAC has done nothing to push vivisection in the right direction, it's allowed the industry to manipulate legislation to the point we are at now, the beginnings of the movement. About time you started to think on your feet. You are a target for the police and you will always be until you are locked away.

Paul, respect!

I'm sick of SHAC teenagers thinking they are the first to think of it, fuck you!

You don't bother, that's the fucking point! You're an ex activist because you're either a) too fucking lazy or b) you value your own liberty above that of the animals due to selfish reasons.

So what if you don't like SHAC? There's plenty of battery farms, vivisection suppliers, commercial labs, game breeders and slaughter houses out there. Pick one and set up your own campaign, there's nothing stopping you. Don't sit there on the sidelines moaning in utter apathy deriding others for your own early retirement, save us the sob story and put your energy to better use.

Writing to MPs and signing petitions is going to get you absolutely nowhere. Yeah so what if Labour created some half hearted 'hunt ban', it's as leaky as a sieve in a washtub and in 10 months time it's going to get ripped to shreds and abolished anyway if the current political trends no doubt continue. The only thing that saves the foxes are the dedicated hunt sabs willing to put themselves between the horsemen and the fox, and in doing so take the occasional punch to the jaw and kick to the gut.

You think you can do better? Lets see you organise a national campaign, or even better lets see you on the front lines under the cover of darkness taking the fight to the enemy. Lets don our black jumpers and rescue us some animals, and give them the taste of freedom that they deserve.

Quit blaming SHAC for everything that's bad in the world, their time lines might not always be spot on but their heart is in the right place. This fight is about getting the abusive hell holes closed and getting the animals out, no compromise.

If you truly care for the animals don't wallow in self defeating apathy about how its not like the good old days, DO SOMETHING!

@ Confirmed SHAC sceptic

"Every other campaign is crap and their supporters nothing better than ‘collaborators’ - only SHAC have the answer and it’s not SHAC’s fault they have failed – it’s all a big conspiracy.

Tiresome."

Who said every other campaign is crap? Oh that's right you did, because nobody else made that claim for you. FYI: I named three campaigns that are crap, I don't think ALL campaigns are crap, but the ones I mentioned definitely are IMO.

Who on earth said SHAC have all the answers? Oh it was you again, funny that. Are you taking clases for shit stirring or just naturally this pathetic?

@SparkyTheClown

"E-mail & letter writing or petitioning lets those in government\the abuse industries know that there are people who give a sh!t about what they're doing. And lets be honest many who are involved at that level wouldn't attend a protest, but they still play a part."

To be realistic though, those in government/the abuse industries know that there are people who give a shit, they don't need reminding about it because it doesn't help! I support email/letter writing (more the former) because it can financially stun companies who have blocked up inboxes or needing to recruit new staff to sort out mail. I don't personally bother with them as it consumes too much of my time (as does writing this!). I think if people are willing and able then they should act as directly as possible to make change though.

As for petitions, they make those who sign believe that it is aiding, which is a false reality based on delusion. Not to mention that as an anarchist I think the whole idea of reform is a weapon against us. For those reaons I wholeheartedly oppose them on moral grounds. I've collected hundreds of signatures in my time and all it's done is made people feel that they are acting, so they don't need to do anything else. If people knew petitions did fuck all and didn't have the option to 'opt out' by signing them, their effort would likely be constructive.

My point is, to say they wouldn't attend a protest (or act in a constructive manor) is an incorrect analogy. I imagine you have not tested this theory by taking away the petition. When the public are unable to remove guilt by signing their name, they find other ways.

@Lynn Sawyer

"Without the army of letter writers (many of whom may be elderly, or carers, or just people who wish to take that course of action for whatever reason) campaigns everywhere would fail."

No offence Lynn but I nearly pissed myself laughing! Maybe waste paper companies would be out of business but campaigns far from would! The Smash EDO campaign barely have an 'army of letter writers' (if any) and you don't see them failing, quite the opposite. As for your description of letter writers, I would instead say that's the average activist. Most of the time it's people who could be taking action and instead can't be bothered and sit in chairs!

An army of letter writers is good for one thing - solidarity for political prisoners.

Of course I love you really, but sometimes I don't think you're quite thinking straight!

@Paul Vegan Anarchist

"Why is it that whenever a post that is out of step with the SHAC orthodoxy appears, the writer is called a troll or NETCU?"

Usually because it's a troll and/or NETCU to be honest. You're right, people shouldn't jump to conclusions, it's basic stereotyping, but ufortunately the 'skeptics' on here are usually trolling.

"To me this does not suggest a company on the verge of collapse."

Why is it that Brian Cass (CEO) himself says that their future is uncertain then?

"Over the course of the last 10 years we have been told many times by SHAC that all that is required is 'one more heave' and HLS will go."

See above from Steve Discombe for those answers. If it weren't for the state support, SHAC would have been right (10 times over at least).

"It isn't strictly true to say all the $72 million has to be paid back by 2011 either - it can be refinanced."

As far as I understand, it already has been refinanced as far as possible. Unless the state write new laws, HLS will be gone. I'm not saying that HLS WILL close then, but that unless the state jumps in yet again (which is likely), then HLS will have no other option but to close.

"The share price has dropped this year too but 10 years ago the shares were worth just a few pence each and yet the company still survived."

This has already been explained by Stevie D. If it weren't for state facilities (banking and insurance) then HLS would have closed. The support from government prompted the rise in the share price, there isn't much that can boost it now unless the state nationalise HLS (which probably isn't out of the question to be fair).

"I wish I could say that the end of HLS was near but there is every reason to suppose the government would bail it out again were it to get into really dire straits once more."

I agree, but this is no reason to give in. If we give in because of state intervention then we are being apathetic and giving in to the idea of taking down capitalism/state. Think critically about this potential knock on effect; HLS are bailed out (or nationalised), it still doesn't work, more money is thrown at them, still no luck. The public start to get angry because the state are emptying their pocket for a vivisection company (just like they did when they did it for the banks, re: g20). For me, this isn't just about animal liberation anymore, but also social revolution. If our fight ends with the state then I'll be pleased, delighted infact.

"About four or five years ago the British and US governments made a decision that the closure of HLS would be one victory too far for the AR movement. New laws were drawn up, old ones used more oppressively and massive investigations launched - Operation Achilles involved over 700 police officers and support staff."

Basically they admit that if we can take down the largest company in one of the largest industries in the world, then animal liberationists (or more generally activists) have won. The real question here is, if SHAC were being unsuccessful in closing down HLS, then why the new laws, why Operation Achilles, why the UK SHAC 7 imprisonment? Surely if there was no threat, they'd be no need for all this repression. A victory too large to handle indeed.

"SHAC will be 10 years old at the end of 2009"

The anti-slave movement was more than 10 years old, so were civil rights activists and suffragettes. They also fought institutionalised inequality, these things take time. Instead of working from the bottom up, people have now decided to work from the top down as well.

"It is easy to say this with hindsight but the reality is that the decision to target a company instead of another family run business - say a lab animal breeder - was a step too far."

To put it frankly, this isn't true. HLS is not targeted instead of another lab breeder, but as well as. B&K was a major campaign some years back before a dose of repression and Harlan and Highgate are big targets at the moment. The irony is that activists had a choice not to put their time into SHAC and go for the next breeder (like some did), but many saw Greg, Natasha & Heather's plan as worthy, as was proved within a few years and still is today.

"I can recall some even predicting all animal experiments would end in Britain within a matter of a few years."

Let's be honest though, those people were naive enough to think that we'd be allowed to end vivisection within a few years, without facing a brutal crackdown!

"morale has collapsed and the numbers taking part in many protests has decreased dramatically."

I disagree, I think morale is at an all time high, as opposed to 2007-2008 when activists were quite frankly terrified, both about protesting and fate of others. At the radical end of the movement we are recognising that despite them locking us up, we will keep on fighting regardless (there is nothing they can do to stop us). As for numbers, it's always been up and down but it's balanced out again for marches, and infact risen for small demos. It's easy to be stuck in 2007 and think nothing has moved on and changed, but it's worth taking a look.

"The sad truth is that were a similar march to be organised now...there would be lines of police protecting the lab as well as security fences. Most likely people would just stand there chanting but were anyone to try to break in or pull down the fence they would face much more serious charges and possibly even a custodial sentence if convicted. These are the times we are going through… "

This is basic social change though? The state doesn't let you succeed, they learn their lessons and hold you back! Look at the Smash EDO campaign and it's going to the same way, does this mean they should give up? Of course not, battle grounds have been drawn.

The bottom line here is effective campaigns are met with severe repression, tactics need to change to evolve the movement. I don't know what else to say apart from it being basic social change that's going on with the campaign against HLS, as one of the battles on the frontlines.

@'ex-activist' (if you ever were one!)

"Greg Avery sacrificed activists, even Natasha fell foul of Greg and Natasha. Willing is not the issue, collateral damage is..."

Natasha never 'fell foul' of Greg and herself, that's quite obviously more lies! If SHAC sacrificed activists then so did MLK, Malcom X, the ANC and so fourth. Activists sacrifice themselves, bravely and rightfully. Take a look at history if it doesn't scare you too much.

"I'm sick of SHAC teenagers thinking they are the first to think of it, fuck you!"

I'm sick of fascists thinking they can use ageism as a weapon. Go fuck yourself.

If you don't think enough is being done: Do more!

If you think a campaign is going the wrong direction: Give positive advice, and feel free to go in your own direction.

If you don't think a campaign is being effective: Start / join a different one.

We get it, you don't like SHAC for some reason, apparently because you have at some point fallen out with Gregg and / or Natasha. How does you moaning on Indymedia help the animals inside HLS or anywhere else? All you are doing is playing straight into the hands of those who wish to divide and conquer. When this fight is won and we all look back and take stock, I'm sure you will be very proud to have been on the side of the state and industry. Well done, give yourself a clap on the back!

No one is telling you SHAC is the only way, or that you have to take part. It is a campaign that has been effective and continues to be so. But if you don't like, go do something else. It seems to me you are just using it as an excuse to do nothing and wallow in self pity.

And still my question is unanswered:

NAME ONE CAMPAIGN WHO HAS EFFECTED ANY MULTINATIONAL COMPANY IN THE SAME WAY SHAC HAS EFCTED HLS.

To be honest, until any of you wingers can answer that you may as well crawl back under your holes and mutter yourselves to sleep at night whilst scrawling "I hate Gregg" on your walls or whatever it is you do.

Stop Whining - Start Winning!

Paul makes some sound and valid points to my mind. Criticising SHAC does not mean that someone is the enemy, in fact learning from past mistakes is vital and he is right to speak out although I do not agree with everything. Personal, public criticism of individual activists who have spent every waking moment dedicated to fighting animal abuse is abhorrent.

Ex activist says I have turned this in to something about me which I would like him to clarify. I stated that I had been arrested and my personal experience to communicate how thing are many who are far more active than I am have experienced the same ie 1. the police will not enforce the Hunting Act, 2. they will actively obstruct and even arrest those trying to film a hunt in many cases, 3 ACPO, pro hunt MPs and senior hunting figures had a meeting in March to discuss getting rid of pesky monitors and sabs, it will get much worse. I used my experiences because if I write about other people's I need their permission and to be honest I am not going to spend ages on research for a brief post like this, too lazy, sorry. A law which is not enforced in any way and which is possibly going to be repealed is not a major victory although I do accept that a conviction under the Hunting Act might make it difficult for someone to get/maintain a shotgun licence unless they win at appeal which. You may be successfully monitoring hunts in your area in full harmony with your local constabulary, maybe you have seen hunts out obeying the law to the letter and only abusing animals within the context of the law or even just drag hunting, maybe the police in your area are hatching a sting on the local hunt. I don't know, you call yourself "ex-activist" so maybe you do not do anything at present in which case a simple question, in your personal experience how effective do you thing the Hunting Act is? In my humble opinion the Hunting Act was an act of appeasement to those who are sympathetic to animal rights and believe that something has been done to stop hunting. Hunting, with a few exceptions goes on as before. The only change is on paper and after 5 years this is plain to see from where I am standing, maybe you have had different experiences?

I thought we were discussing tactics and whether or not SHAC is a force for good which does come down to a humans alone as non humans cannot organise against HLS or other animal abuse institution. Although elephants for example are more than capable of organising against humans we cannot communicate effectively to form an alliance. Talking of tactics and campaigns comes down to humans at present. If humans fighting to liberate animals are imprisoned, mutilated and killed that is a major issue and one we have to face. We are all fighting for animal rights and I don't know who you are ex-activist you may be someone who is taking a well earned rest (vital for long term activists), you may be someone who has given up or you may be a cop, I have no idea. If we go by the name "ex activist" though this implies that you have given up so please do not pontificate to those of us who are still fighting for animal liberation. You may have had a bad experience with some activists, guess what so have many people, sadly we are not always as nice as we should be to one another. Some activists are miserable sods, they can still be good activists though. Posting up on a public forum is not the best way to deal with differences from the past. IAvoiding people you don't like, working with those you do IS a much better way to get on with things.

I have just glanced at what I wrote and it looks as though I am accusing Paul of posting personal criticisms of activists, in fact I believe Paul has done his utmost to be constructive and to avoid personal slights, I was referring to the myriad of other posts which blame good activists for all and sundry.
Another point about "ex-activist". I find it strange that someone who cares about animal rights would gloat about the idea that another activist is a police target and the prospect of incarceration. I can think of no reason why I would be imprisoned expect for some faux conspiracy theory, can you enlighten me more please ex-activist? There are people who I clash with and do not work well with but I would do my utmost to assist them if they were in trouble.
Why attack the "SHAC teenagers"? They have brought energy and vitality into the movement, they campaign hard and do their best. Maybe there is some naivety but is that not the same complaint uttered by every grumpy old man/woman about the younger generation in every aspect of life? Of course teenagers know everything, it is expected of them.

I have not been on any EDO demos but have massive respect for that campaign, I am sure that people do write letters though to MPs to EDO etc. Not everyone can attend demos, not everyone wants to or can face doing something which might lead to an arrest. Those who sit at home writing letters do have an impact and I personally would rather people did that than nothing at all. Those caring for the elderly and children, those who are housebound, those who are on bail or licence can and do write letters they might find it difficult to go to demos or partake in illegal direct action. Very often newspapers especially on the internet are filled with letters from the public countering corporations and standing up for animals. An MP who gets letters on EDMs about vivisection from constituients may act upon that, at least it counters letters from vivisectors. Personally I am really glad that people do this because writing letters bores me and it is vital that it gets done.

On another note many people involved with SHAC only write polite letters to HLS and other companies. If letter writing is so ineffectual why oh why did I keep reading through bundles of injunction papers polite letters of protest from often elderly people used as evidence of "harassment"? Why was on man in his 80s, a carer for his wife, threatened with arrrest and imprisonment for writing polite letters? Why was a man with Aspergers imprisoned again for writing polite letters to HLS? In fact Amnesty International have had considerable success with writing letters to dictatorships have they not (regardless of any failings they may have)?

Letter writing, emails and phone calls compliment other forms of protest. For example imagine you are MD of a barstad company, you are being blockaded at work a big contractor cannot get in because the tyres on the lorry have been slashed, "concerned" from Woking has had a letter printed in the paper about your company and you have to respond, a housewife is on the phone wanting to speak to you about animal rights, a Quaker has written yet another letter blessing you and saying that he will pray for your immortal soul and some Buddhists have just turned up with a petition, 100 letters protesting against your company are mixed in with the other post and that is just today, you have to pay someone to go through it all and time is money. You go to your MP to complain about this "harassment" and find that he has recieved 10 letters from constituents and really has very little sympathy for your plight. Letter writing has its place and for some this is all they can actually do.

...but I've started so I best continue *sighs*.

To reiterate, in short, there is a difference between writing letters/emails directly to animal abusers, their supporters and newspapers, and writing to MPs, petitioning and EDMing.

The former is (as you say) a complimentary form of protest (AKA direct action) which I support, the latter is action that deludes people into thinking that are acting. Instead, they are asking (more specifically begging) someone else to act for them due to apathy/lazyness.

Yes I agree that many letters can cause economic damage, as I explained above, and that many people are unable to do anything more. I was just pointing out that the majority who write letters can do more but just can't be bothered, usually because they think letters are stronger which they aren't. An army of letter writers, to me, sounds like a lazy army.

Think of it this way. If everyone who was able and willing to do more than write letters did more, and didn't have time to write letters (as most do), we'd be hoping for as few letters as possible. Instead we'd be hoping just those unable and unwilling to do more write them, no?

As a final point, to explain why I oppose MPs, petitions and EDMs, is because it places more power in the hands of the state (therefore by default, like it or not, believe it or not, less power in the hands of the individual/protester). Even if its just to ask them to help us, to let them now we're here, or to give them gentle reminders. If we didn't do these things we'd be more self-determined instead of dependant on state figures to 'help' our movement. Government would seem as un-democratic as it is. Especially when in the end MPs are only taking sides for their own and their party's own benefits. Who does it essentially help? Them, not us, just them. In the long run they don't fucking care so they might as well fuck off!

Anyway, for me this is deeper than 'don't trust policians' (of feed them) and 'petitions and EDMs is apathy dressed up as anti-apathy'. It's the anarchist perspective of not relying on, wanting or asking the state to stand between humans and non-humans (or any other social groups for that matter). If they do so initially, we'll rely on them forever. If they take away that barrier, we'll have to fight all over again. If the state dissolves then we'll feel like we've gone back a step. When in fact, if the state stops reinforcing speciesism we'd all be better off.

I'm morally opposed to that authoritative barrier, known as laws, and I think many people are recognising the same when it comes to examples such as the Hunting Act. I guess you can have a guess at who I am, but yes, I'm an animal liberationist opposed to animal rights.

SHAC have dug up the remains of another granny.

.....it is the work of the same group that took the urn of Vasella's mother on July 27.

Her gravestone was defiled with a message saying the Basel pharmaceutical company must sever its ties with Britain's Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS), the largest contract animal-testing company in Europe.

The recent attacks bear the hallmarks of British extremists Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC), which in recent months has reportedly targeted Novartis in France, burning down a sports centre and setting fire to company cars.

It's the mark of a sentient being to be able to learn from ones mistakes - this however is SHAC.

I do see your point re Parliament and certainly the Hunting Act but do send off the occassional letter myself and sign cards which take a few seconds of my time and does not really interfere with going on demos etc. My Mp is not sympathetic so there is not much point writing up.
What is this about an urn being stolen in Basel? This is NOT the work of SHAC but if true done by an autonomous group.
Please tell us more.

The Glady's thing wasn't actually linked to HLS, let alone SHAC. This recent action is also nothing to do with SHAC, although it is clearly an action taken against HLS by some underground group.

RE: they haven't learnt their lesson; the Glady's incident actually closed Newchurch Guinea Pig Farm, so it worked. Presumably then whoever has done this has learnt from the past which is why they have done it. So far the police have no suspects, so it seems they have learnt the only lesson they needed to: Don't get caught! Whilst grave desecration isn't the best PR tool, for some people that isn't an issue, the issue is saving lives, and as there is a history of that happening it is hardly surprising others would emulate it for the same goal.

I am intrigued that no one has answered Steve Discombe's question about any other multinational affected by a campaign as much as HLS has been by SHAC. Maybe you have the answer Cook Coo?

"I am intrigued that no one has answered Steve Discombe's question about any other multinational affected by a campaign as much as HLS has been by SHAC. Maybe you have the answer Cook Coo?"

They'll continue to dodge that question because they know they haven't got an answer for it. No other sustained campaigns have managed to wipe out so many customers & suppliers, or got them de listed from a stock exchange. They'll just skirt the issue and raise irrelevant points in the hope that people don't realise that their accusations are hollow.