Today 6 activists who had plead guilty to either Conspiricy to Blackmail HLS or Conspiricy to interfere with a contractual relationship of an animal research company (SOCPA 145). Were sentenced
We were expecting the worse and it didn't go to badly to be honest.
Sarah Whitehead received a sentence of 6 years (she will be free in two years) plus 10 year ASBO. - she admitted painting cars and houses of animal abusers.
Nicole Vosper 3 years 6 months (she will be free in two weeks time served!!!!!) plus 5 year ASBO - she admitted painting cars and houses of animal abusers.
Tom Harris 4 years (will surve under 2 years) - 5 year ASBO Tom admitted sending two emails to bike back after receiving them through email from a person he didn't know (the emails were about painting cars) and taking part in a loud demo in France which the French police regarded as totally lawful (but the British police didn't).
JJ (Jason Mullen) 3 years (he will be out in about a year) - 5 year ASBO - JJ took part in a office occupation in France that the French police do not regard as unlawful.
Nicci Tapping 15 months (she should be out in just over 4 months) - 5 year ASBO - Nicci admitted taking part in running the SHAC campaigns legal side (organising demos and the office) - she admitted knowing that people (who she did not know) were breaking the law as part of the campaign (that really is it!!!!).
Alfie Fitzpatrick 1 year suspended sentence - 5 year ASBO he admitted taking part in a loud demo in France attended by the French police (the French police did not feel an offence had been committed).
All the other things reported on the tele/papers Hoax bombs, paedophile letters, arson attacks, abusive letters, the tampon in the post were carried out by people either previously convicted (and not part of the actual conspiricy - first or second trial) or never found. The used tampon has DNA evidence however there is no match on the national database. Most of this also occured before the 2005 start date of the charge.
Must the individuals who carried out the above acts are not known to the guys convicted today.
They are being blamed for the entire campaign and not what they individually did, or even had control over.
It must be pointed out as well that Nicci, Alfie and JJ were convicted of SOCPA 145 which has been condemed by Liberty as "politicising the criminal justice system). If they did the things they are accused of against anything other than animal testing they probably wouldn't have even gone to prison!
Sarah Whitehead received a sentence of 6 years (she will be free in two years) plus 10 year ASBO. - she admitted painting cars and houses of animal abusers.
Nicole Vosper 3 years 6 months (she will be free in two weeks time served!!!!!) plus 5 year ASBO - she admitted painting cars and houses of animal abusers.
Tom Harris 4 years (will surve under 2 years) - 5 year ASBO Tom admitted sending two emails to bike back after receiving them through email from a person he didn't know (the emails were about painting cars) and taking part in a loud demo in France which the French police regarded as totally lawful (but the British police didn't).
JJ (Jason Mullen) 3 years (he will be out in about a year) - 5 year ASBO - JJ took part in a office occupation in France that the French police do not regard as unlawful.
Nicci Tapping 15 months (she should be out in just over 4 months) - 5 year ASBO - Nicci admitted taking part in running the SHAC campaigns legal side (organising demos and the office) - she admitted knowing that people (who she did not know) were breaking the law as part of the campaign (that really is it!!!!).
Alfie Fitzpatrick 1 year suspended sentence - 5 year ASBO he admitted taking part in a loud demo in France attended by the French police (the French police did not feel an offence had been committed).
All the other things reported on the tele/papers Hoax bombs, paedophile letters, arson attacks, abusive letters, the tampon in the post were carried out by people either previously convicted (and not part of the actual conspiricy - first or second trial) or never found. The used tampon has DNA evidence however there is no match on the national database. Most of this also occured before the 2005 start date of the charge.
Must the individuals who carried out the above acts are not known to the guys convicted today.
They are being blamed for the entire campaign and not what they individually did, or even had control over.
It must be pointed out as well that Nicci, Alfie and JJ were convicted of SOCPA 145 which has been condemed by Liberty as "politicising the criminal justice system). If they did the things they are accused of against anything other than animal testing they probably wouldn't have even gone to prison!
Homepage:
Comments
Hide the following 6 comments
I agree but...
25.10.2010 18:51
Lynn Sawyer
Is that really the extent of what they did?
25.10.2010 20:49
It is true that the Frenchies weren't too bothered by the demos, (the office invasion included), and the demos were properly declared, (according to all appropriate French laws with the authorisations being organised by a lawyer), so I fail to accept that the repression can have been SO severe that they were prosecuted JUST for participating in those demos. I mean, according to the article at least one person nearly went to prison for attending a legal European demo...which possibly isn't so accurate considering other Brits were also on that demo and they didn't find themselves in court as a result!
I'm not trolling, just pointing out that there must be some exageration, (or in this case underestimation), of people's roles in this article. I know that the trial is politicised and whatever else, but a more honest appraisal of events and people's actions might help other activists judge the lengths they are willing to go to because if they were to believe this verbatim then people might fear to attend other lawful demos abroad for fear of coming home and being prosecuted for it!
Not convinced
@ not convinced
25.10.2010 23:29
You say that we shoud be careful not to underestimate what the defendants may have done so that we know where we stand when we go on actions. This is a very good point and my personal opinion is that in the animal rights movement for some years now the state have tried to crush all dissent as well as actions which have included criminal damage and/or other stuff. I think that every single activist needs to get good legal and security training and know their rights if protesting or remain utterly anonymous working with a very small group or alone if carrying out any action which might be illegal in an ideal world. The state is cracking down and we need to continue to resist it learning from our mistakes.People need to be aware but not paralysed with fear. I have done demos where the police have said that our behaviour was good and then the next week the same behaviour is regarded as criminal. The police and the law are not set in stonewhat is ok one day is an outrage the next. Not easy but the way things are. Be politically active, have a powerful opponent and you will probably have aggro from the police if you are doing your job properly.
Lynn Sawyer
They did not all plead guilty to blackmail
26.10.2010 11:32
The others did indeed plead guilty to blackmail it would seem out of pragmatism more than anything else to get the discount in sentencing and the fact that it would have been trial by media and histrionincs rather than the facts in the case.
If you actually want to live in something like a democracy you ignore what the state has done here at your peril. No defendant had a case whereby the evidence on what they had done as an individual was examined impartially. If someone sent sanitary towels and needles in the post well let the public see who is suspected and the evidence against them rather than a blanket prosecution of anyone holding the same political views. It is yet another example of how powerful interests have the state as a lapdog. A pensioner terrorised on a council estate suffers far worse than any of these "victims" but it is oft reported on how the police ignore ordinary folk's cries for help.
This is a political prosecution, political sentencing and evidence of an attempt to crush dissent.
Lynn Sawyer
We need to understand
26.10.2010 12:36
PLEASE --- this is NOT about what actions should or should not be taken, what is or is not justified in the furtherance of the cause.. It is about the DESCRIPTION of actions. Take these two ........
a) Some bunch of friends out partying, drunk out of their gourds, for kicks dump buckets of paint on cars and houses, crack cars windshields, etc.
b) Some bunch of friends together decide to send out mennaces, do thus and so or we'll dump buckets of paint on your cars and houses, crack your windshields, etc. Maybe divied up among the group who would send the mennaces and who would do the destruction.
The ACT of minor destruction if carried out the same. But "a" and "b" are very different matters. There would be (should be) no "conspiracy" charges associated with "a" and "a" isn't "extortion". But with "b", yes.
Again PLEASE -- I am NOT suggesting that you shouldn't do what you think necessary and justified in your campaign. That's up to you. But cut out the whining about consequences of those choices.
MDN
@MDN
27.10.2010 17:10
If you look at campaigns like Smash EDO, they have a legal campaign and illegal actions carried out by other people. The legal campaign is free to talk about the illegal actions of others, and even justify it morally. In animal rights campaigns the legal group can't even mention the fact illegal actions have happened, even though mainstream media can. They have to censor themselves and basically pretend it doesn't exist, to avoid incitement charges. And even when they do that they are still done for blackmail anyway!
I'm not saying Smash EDO deserve the same crackdown as SHAC (though they should prepare for the possibility) as they do a great job. But it is clear that the rules are much harsher for animal rights, possibly due to their greater effectiveness.
anon