Two men have been sentenced to a total of three years imprisonment at Oxford Crown Court today for offences linked to animal rights.
Two men have been sentenced to a total of three years imprisonment at Oxford Crown Court today for offences linked to animal rights.
They were each sentenced to 18 months imprisonment and given a ten-year anti-social behaviour order. Their sentences were reduced on the grounds of their guilty plea, as well as their current health status.
On sentencing the two defendants, Judge King said: “I want to send a message to anyone else appearing before a court that such conduct cannot be tolerated and a custodial sentence must be expected”.
The convictions relate to a number of offences across the UK and the United States between 1January 1, 2002, and January 27, 2009, in which threatening letters were sent to companies linked to drug testing, as well as their business partners and employees.
Det Chief Insp Mark Jones, who investigated the case, said: “The vast majority of animal rights campaigners are law abiding and further their cause through peaceful, democratic means.
"They chose not to follow this course and embarked on an illegal campaign which caused distress and anxiety to their victims, all of whom were law abiding businesses and companies."
They were each sentenced to 18 months imprisonment and given a ten-year anti-social behaviour order. Their sentences were reduced on the grounds of their guilty plea, as well as their current health status.
On sentencing the two defendants, Judge King said: “I want to send a message to anyone else appearing before a court that such conduct cannot be tolerated and a custodial sentence must be expected”.
The convictions relate to a number of offences across the UK and the United States between 1January 1, 2002, and January 27, 2009, in which threatening letters were sent to companies linked to drug testing, as well as their business partners and employees.
Det Chief Insp Mark Jones, who investigated the case, said: “The vast majority of animal rights campaigners are law abiding and further their cause through peaceful, democratic means.
"They chose not to follow this course and embarked on an illegal campaign which caused distress and anxiety to their victims, all of whom were law abiding businesses and companies."
Comments
Hide the following 2 comments
Proof of this?
12.11.2009 21:57
Proof?
...the links to these sentences...
12.11.2009 22:46
----
The search also gives:
Men jailed for animal rights threats
5:00pm Thursday 12th November 2009
----
By chance another item found on the search leads to
which includes.....
UNTRUTH IN LABELING
Opponents think animal rights is an extreme idea, and it is not unusual for them to pin the label “extremists” on animal rights advocates. It is important to understand how this label is used as a rhetorical tool to prevent informed, fair discussion; otherwise, chances are we won’t have an informed, fair discussion.
“Extremists” and “extremism” are ambiguous words. In one sense, extremists are people who will do anything to further their objectives. The terrorists who destroyed the twin towers of the World Trade Center were extremists in this sense; they were willing to go to any lengths, even if it meant killing thousands of innocent human beings, to further their ends.
Animal rights advocates (ARAs) are not extremists in this sense. Let me repeat this: ARAs are not extremists in this sense. Even the most militant advocates of animal rights (the members of the Animal Liberation Front, say) believe there are absolute moral limits to what can be done in the name of animal liberation, acts that should never be performed, they are so bad. For example, the ALF opposes hurting let along killing human beings.
me