From their comments about the letters it doesn’t look as if they’ve necessarily lied – it looks as if they’ve been massively inept.

There are 235,700 residents in Camden. If they claim they’ve sent 600 to 1,200 letters “across” the borough, the chances of anyone being one of the lucky recipients is about 1 in 400, or at best 1 in 200. Never mind the chances of them being lost in all the junk mail from the local council, pizza menus and so on. Gather a room full of Camden residents and the chances are that none of them would have received a letter

So – while they’ve clearly been inept on this, it is, in fact, a leap to assume they’ve lied.

The MI5 warning is another matter: the evidence for that has always been third hand – a report in the ever-so-reliable Evening Standard two years ago saying it “understood” there had been a warning, meaning they’d heard it from another source. The concern mentioned in that story was that there would be a risk if the lab had stuff like ebola in it. Which it won’t, as it’s not level 4 - so MI5 may not be bothered now, if it was ever bothered to begin with. If the campaign still suspects a lie about this, it should send a freedom of information request to the department it suspscts was warned, as that could clear this up.

Some of the other warnings about the lab have been hyped up, such as the suggestion that all the scientists in Mill Hill, including the head of the facility there, are anti the project and the suggestion that this is because they fear a 28 Days Later plague will be released. The Camden New Journal article on which this claim is based only quoted two unnamed scientists at the lab, and even they stressed they were not worried about “containment” at the proposed lab.

The difference between level 3 and level 4 is crucial. There are very few level 4 labs, and they deal with the most dangerous stuff. In contrast, there are lots of level 3 labs in the UK, several of which are only a short walk from the site. The whole suggestion that the new lab will bring some grand, brand new danger to London looks a bit silly when you realise how many other facilities of the same level (only potentially riskier, because they’re older) exist nearby.

Incidentally – all the reports from the campaign keep repeating that the lab’s been “dubbed the 28 Days Later lab by the mainstream media”. As far as I’ve seen, it was campaigners who dubbed it that. Not even sure the mainstream media's ever even used that phrase. Would love to be corrected on that, though.

Freedom of Information requests were submitted by Camden councillors including Ben Rawlings and a resident who produced a document regarding safety at the public forum this week.
The consortium panel refused to discuss these documents.

We have kept newspaper articles which included photos from the film "28 Days Later" with regard to the lab.

There may be a serious issue under this but all this 'Peter Pan - 28 Days plague' just come accross as incoherent ranting.

This campaign needs to get a grip - outline the issues - out line what can be done - don't rant!

The laboratory consortium UKCMRI were the ones who displayed the Peter Pan picture to represent themselves as part of their display backdrop behind the panel of speakers.

Newspapers included photos from the film "28 Days Later" with regard to the lab and if residents make reference to this it does not mean they are "ranting" but commenting upon it.

If the campaigners who are local residents and local activists, feel confused as to why the UKCMRI used a Peter Pan photo as part of their presentation then that is valid, understandable and does not constitute "ranting".

If you have any issues around why Peter Pan was used by the UKCMRI to represent themselves, ask them why they did this rather than accuse residents and campaigners of "ranting" about this.

If you do not like that newspapers used "28 Days Later" to describe the lab then ask them why this was rather than accuse residents and campaigners of "ranting" if they make reference to it.

We are the ones who live near here and as residents we are very aware of the seriousness around this lab and more so than most people, because we live here.

*One of the very serious concerns that many residents have around the lab is the question as to whether the UKCMRI plan to link up with the UK Border Agency with regard to compulsory health checks at immigration. The UKCMRI have refused to answer this.

*Residents and councillors have not been given adequate responses around lab safety from the UKCMRI. Foot and mouth disease was leaked from govt facility Pirbright in Surrey.

*Residents have been ignored when we say that we want the land used for a mixed development including housing within keeping with Camden Council's planning brief.

*Ordinary residents especially parents are concerned that the lab plans could lead teenagers into extremist groups or that residents and activists might become so frustrated that direct action including extremsim is seen as the only option in fighting against the lab becuase they feel ignored by the UKCMRI, Camden Council and the government.

*Residents worry that they might be targeted by extremists who support the lab.

*Residents are concerned that they might be targeted by the police and MI5 for speaking out against the lab.

Residents do not feel that the UKCMRI using a photo of Peter Pan to represent themselves is mature or appropriate. I dare say that supporters of the lab will rant and say that we should "stop going on about Peter Pan" but it's only fair to say that it is the UKCMRI's own fault for using Peter Pan photos in the first place.

Residents of Camden have a RIGHT to speak out against the lab and we support any residents who speak out as long this is done reasonably. Not all Indy posts or other internet postings are from "this campaign".

If residents are upset about the lab then this is understandable and residents concerns should be listened to by the UKCMRI, council etc.

Simply accusing residents of "ranting" as a way of avoiding questions such as why the UKCMRI use Peter Pan photos to represent themselves just exposes the UKCMRI's supporters attitude towards residents.

It was scientists who claimed that : "Animal Rights activists posed a security risk which could lead to a 28 Days Later plague release scenario".

It was the UKCMRI who used Peter Pan pics as part of their presentation.

If anyone is ranting it was the scientists for going on about 28 Days Later initially. The newsapers loved it and it's been nicknmaed the "28 Days Later Lab" by local residents. The scientists are to blame for this.

If anyone needs to get a grip it's the scientists who thought that using Peter Pan photos was a good idea. Why on earth did they do that?

For people who don't know what Peter Pan is ...it's a story about a boy who can fly, lives in Neverland and meets fairies.

To the person accusing residents of "ranting"....we have outlined the issues that are important to us around the lab.

Safety and Security
Animal testing
Housing
Communication
Honesty

Many of us found the use of the Peter Pan photos used by the UKCMRI childish, insulting and confusing. It was newspapers who used the "28 Days Later" story...on the FRONT PAGE!

It has been noted that the supporters of the lab have regularly accused residents and campaigners of "ranting" about the UKCMRI lab and all of the the issues concerned while refusing to respond to a single letter or email from residents, councillors and campaigners. Interesting that people working for the MRC [openly] and people posing as "activists" are mirroring each other when accusing us of "ranting". If anything comes of as incoherent rant it was that of the accuser him/herself.

You are the one who rants. Eff off back to SHACWATCH.

For Camden residents who don't know what shacwatch is...they are bag of nutters who spend all their time following AR / antilab activists around in cars on behalf of the police, MRC and security firms [they are failed MI5 wannabees who ended up working for a security firm for the MRC/HLS] then they write stupid personal remarks on shacwatch and Indymedia. Wasters.

 http://www.camdennnewjournal.co.uk/011305/f011305_01.htm

Don't confuse me with whoever it was who had a go about "ranting" above. I'd be intrigued to know what the Peter Pan image was about as well.

But noone's provided any links yet showing that it was the press or scientists that are calling this the "28 days later" lab. I've searched the Camden New Journal site and found nothing. And I can't find this piece where the scientists made those claims either - only the one in which they stressed that there was no containment issue. Can you scan and upload the one you say you have? Thanks.

They all printed articles about safety and both the London Lite / londonpaper called it the 28 Days Later lab.

link

Here it is!

To read the article go to our facebook group page.