A postman has been sentenced to 4 years inside with the help of NETCU. However as he had only plead guilty to 19 charges including a hoax bomb, sending packages full of white powder and racist hate mail, with 140 other offences taken into consideration he only got 4 years. Clearly NETCU think that Sean Kirtley is much worse all those antics standing outside a lab with a banner and crossing a road hence the far worse sentence including a 5 year CRASBO. Maybe what they are trying to tell us is that if we behave like Mr Azevedo that we will get lesser sentences than if we continue to peacefully protest? Interesting perspective.
We love the editor(s) over at Shac Watch so much that we thought we might do a little follow up on the previous Shac Watch, Really, No Really article.
So… they have been busy haven’t they, sadly things have descended into a tangled mess of half facts and ill researched information with some supposedly “personal details” of activists all of which is held together by a sharp new design (apparently our wheatgrass comments hit a nerve…)
What do we know about the Shac Watch authors then…
1. They aren’t police, if they are they are the must be the worst most ill informed community support officers ever.
With all of the research (googling really) that has gone into some of the information on SW it is obvious that there are some glaring omissions which would have been known by any officer actively policing animal rights protests.
2. They are in contact with people who work in the vivisection industry, specifically the Medical Research Council.
So when the report went out about activists being held at MRC Harwell how did they know the name of one of the activists? It wasn’t published anywhere and the security at MRC Harwell were on an information lock down as we found out after posing as a freelance journalist.
3. They fulfil characteristics of a new extremist organisation
Taken from Wikipedia’s Purported characteristics of extremism:
- A tendency to Character assassination
- Name calling and labelling
- The making of irresponsible, sweeping generalizations
- The failure to give adequate proof of assertions made
- Advocacy of double standards
- A tendency to view opponents and critics as essentially evil
- Advocating some degree of censorship and/or repression of their opponents and critics
- Identifying themselves by reference to whom their enemies are
- Widely use slogans, buzzwords and “thought-terminating clichés”
- Claim some kind of moral or other superiority over others
- A tendency to believe that it is justified to do bad things in the service of a supposedly “good” cause
- An emphasis on emotional response, as opposed to reasoning and logical analysis
- Hypersensitivity and “vigilance”
- An inability to tolerate ambiguity and uncertainty
- The personalization of hostility
- A tendency to assume that the system is defective if one is defeated
How long before they don balaclavas and are bricking our windows I wonder?
4. Sadly they are not the protectors of freedom.
I mean, we have no problem with them publishing contact information of activists which is already publicly available on the internet, but editing peoples comments on the Shac Watch site is clearly a pathetic attempt to stifle free speech. It shows a sad disregard for debate and even more sadly they cant take sarcasm as they have deleted a few of our comments in the past rather than respond in kind, it would seem they simply didn’t have the intelligence to respond to most posts even with so much time on their hands.
In closing then, we are thinking… Oxford Student? Too stupid to be a professor (we hope!) Maybe the egg throwing idiot? Or maybe a security guard for a lab or breeder. An “Oxford observer”, This could all even be the work of a real life vivisector as we know now it is easy to make the false assumption that those who partake in animal research are at all intelligent, some are clearly off their rockers.
Who knows? If you do know why not drop us a line though… it would be a reet laff to find out!
warn [at] riseup.net or ring us on 01452 539673
A message to Shac Watch from WARN…
We are assuming that the ‘G’ key was broken when you did the WARN is dead article as you clearly had lost your main research tool. We are just glad you care about us so much! We expected a better standard of research from you! P.S. When will we get a copy of the Shac Watch Manifesto / Credo? are we allowed to beat humans up if we join your terror cell?
OPERATION OVERKILL AS 11 POLICE FORCES SNOOP ON ANIMAL RIGHTS GATHERING AT FRIEND FARM ANIMAL SANCTUARY KENT
No doubt supremely jealous of animal rights folk meeting together, socialising , drinking lots of tea, helping on the sanctuary and of course workshops the police decided to get their own national gathering together. Being too wimpy to actually camp local hotels (so our sources tell us) burst at the seams with police at the bar, at the gym and comparing camera lens sizes with one another at every opportunity.
The Netcu “briefing document” was very much in attendance but we only caught glimpses and they would not let us have a proper read of it. Now remember this “briefing document” (we believe) was heavily criticised by West Mercia police professional standards as legally wrong, officers made unlawful arrests after referring to the handbook and the force had to pay out £25,000 to Sequani activists. The handbook obviously said that it was lawful to arrest someone for failing to give a name and address under section 50 of the Police Reform Act 2002 on suspicion of behaving in an “anti social” manner simply for being present on a peaceful demonstration and indeed an activist was arrested in Cheltenham a week ago by officers with this document in their possession. Aggravated trespass and Section 42 7A Criminal Justice and Police Act (failure to comply with police direction to leave “home demonstration” ) have also resulted in unlawful arrests at Sequani in which the flawed advice of this handbook featured prominently. So if any police officer would like to send us a copy (you know where we live) so that we can correct the mistakes and stop any further embarrassment then feel free. Alternatively keep making unlawful arrests we could do with the cash.
Kent police were joined by Essex, City, the Met’, Surrey, Hertfordshire, Cambridgeshire, South Yorkshire, Central Scotland, Hampshire and Thames Valley a fifth of all forces in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Local officers had all leave cancelled which on father’s day was (we think ) rather cruel and sincerely hope that they go on strike, leave Kent police or at least write lots of scathing blogs www.coppersblog.blogspot.com (maybe one of them will send us a copy of the netcu handbook). Their chums from around the country prowled around East Peckham photographing people and other stuff in an attempt to gather information and to intimidate. They failed miserably.
Kent traffic police were given any passing motorist to play with as traffic controls (featuring deck chairs for the officers) were set up a hundred yards in both direction in order to annoy local people and to stop every animal rights car. Strange how just by pure “coincidence” that random traffic stops are becoming routine when there are animal rights people in the vicinity because they have done this outside Sequani as well. Please note well producers were not given to anyone, the police phoned through to the insurance company directly and if the computer said no then some vehicles were impounded! Needless to say making sure that MOT, road tax, insurance and other stuff like tyres are all correct is fundamental to ensuring that the police do not get the pleasure of handing out fines/ points on licence/impounding vehicles etc as they will try very hard.
Whilst the police were on the main civil the size of the operation and its intent must be challenged. Photographing people including children attending a private legal event was intended to provoke and intimidate. The police are paid by the ordinary person through forcible taxation to at least pretend to protect the public from crime not attend boys weekends away. Questions should be asked by those who reside in each of the forces involved (especially Kent police)as to why public resources were diverted from the public to oppress ordinary decent people either as residents of East Peckham or as activists. For instance Julie Spence Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire is often bemoaning the fact that her coffers are bare so why were 4 of her officers in Kent for an entire weekend? Who on earth decided that it was a good idea to a) alienate their own officers by cancelling leave for no reason b) try to antagonise animal rights people c) antagonise the local community d) invite a fifth of all forces to join in the jamboree e) spend what must amount to hundreds of thousands of pounds on this farce? Maybe they should be demoted to CSO status?
Complaints should be made either via Kent Police professional standards or the IPCC
Mark and Marion are doing the most wonderful job running their sanctuary and are an inspiration please look up their website and do what you can to help the animals in their care
5th March 2008
I was alone at home on the night of Thursday 7th November 2007 and on the phone to a friend when I heard something being delivered in my porch. I went to investigate and found 4 letters from Fidelity International addressed to 3 other people and SHAC. As I returned to my front room I was aware of a flash and when I looked through the window 2 men were staring at me, one was short, slightly plump and bald, both wore sunglasses which was odd as it was 19.10 and very dark. They ran into the darkness from whence they came and obviously wanted to try and intimidate me by concealing their identity. I had no opportunity to tell them that they had got the wrong address. I phoned the police a few minutes later to report this incident especially as until 4 years ago in spite of the fact that I had never even heard of Fidelity they obtained a Protection from Harassment Act injunction against me, I was forced into an undertaking or else my home would have been at risk from court costs. I consider this to be an act of attempted intimidation because of my beliefs and consider that Fidelity are actually harassing me. I certainly have not been outside the house of any Fidelity employee photographing them through their front windows.
Furthermore I it is not my responsibility to serve these papers and therefore they have not been received by those they were addressed to. As they are legal papers I have burnt them so that they do not fall into the wrong hands.
I left a message on …. and someone called John called back the next day and left a message saying he had no idea what the injunction was about.
On Monday 11th February 2008 I spoke to Peter at Fidelity who had no idea about any injunction, harassment or SHAC . When I spoke to the switch board they were also somewhat bemused hardly the reaction of a company laid siege to a campaign of harassment. Pc Robbins (West Mercia police) kindly also phoned them and Peter promised to investigate this matter.
The papers I noted were from Burnenn solicitors based at 50 Lothian Road, Edinburgh, (only found after several phone calls as they did not bother with supplying an address or contact number). I spoke to Claire on 12th Feb 2008 who was also looking into this matter.
Today due to the fact that neither Claire nor Peter had been in touch I rang them again today. Claire told me that she had sent off an email requesting details and that no-one had responded. I left a message on Peter’s phone.
Today I also spoke to a court official who told me that I should have returned the papers although there was no return address and the 2 thuggish process servers ran into the night. I wish it to be known to the court that Fidelity and their solicitors have abused the law in order to try and intimidate and threaten and that these papers have not in any way been served on the defendants. I also wish to complain about their underhand behaviour and gross incompetence.
The General Department,
Court of Session,
Update 14th April 2008
Neither Fidelity, Burnnen solicitors or the Edinburgh High Court have bothered to contact me. I must admit I am not exactly too bothered about my enemies turning up and trying to photograph me, after all as (when they were legal) home demonstrations were common and consisted of standing outside someones’s house with banners and often megaphones. What sickens me is the hypocrisy of these people. If it is morally acceptable to come to me at home and photograph me do not whine if animal rights activists do the same to vivisectors. The reason I have complained is that an animal rights person turning up at a Fidelity worker’s house taking photos would face prison as opposed to indifference. The police are not even bothering to investigate the same “crime” when perpetrated by animal abusers. Another case of large corporations getting preferential treatment.
Update 12th May 2008
Still no-one has bothered to contact me. I think therefore it’s official Fidelity International have no problem with men turning up outside the homes of lone females and photographing them. If animal rights activists were to do this to an employee of Fidelity (NOT advised) then Fidelity would be hypocrites to complain!
It has come to our attention that this site is up and they want nice people who try to stop torture and murder locked up “until all are caged”. Whoever wrote this is not very nice and is pretty rubbish at designing websites to boot. What is all the wheat grass all about? We at NW are intrigued. Anyway we’ve got this really good lawn mower and we’re gonna mash up that silly lawn of theirs ha ha ha (just joking Steve). Anyway if anyone from SHAC watch is reading this some of us are really angry that we’ve been left out of the photos and if we are really honest with one another really hurt deep inside. We may even need counseling. Would it help if we posted our CVs with photos?
This just in…
Shac Watch using the Internet as a research tool (technology huh?) have managed to glean information on one of the WARN activists after we posted some praise on their site. They, using what we can only assume is a key board typed in the Words “Chris” and “Western Animal Rights Network” and BAM we were exposed, they even had the audacity to post the WARN phone number which they could have done using the “Copy and Paste function” on the WARN contact page.
WARN Press Release – 19 March 2008
We at WARN were shocked to hear of this breech of our strict security precautions but feel that no amount of balaclavage (< New word for the Oxford Dictionary) could have prevented the exposure of the activists contact information from being viewed on the internet after we inadvertently made it publicly available in various press releases into the public domain. We ask that anyone who has seen the contact information on the Shac Watch please forget what you have seen, in other words “you ain’t seen us, right?”
Check em out for some serious laughs… Just don’t mention the wheat grass :)
Now we admit that not everyone is happy with swearing and that there are times and places when expletives are inappropriate. However a private conversation at a demo at Sequani between 3 young male activists with no-one but other activists (most of whom swear like troopers) and police officers (ditto) to possibly overhear is surely no one elses business? Wrong, apparently uttering the F word is now an arrestable offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act and some delicate little flower of a police officer was so incensed whilst eavesdropping that he got all stroppy and threatened to arrest the activist if he swore again. We have insider information that police vans are not the most pleasant places to be if you are not a big fan of swearing or farting and indeed we hope that this police officer is never in the company of Thames Valley police who in addition to the f word use the c word ( and a whole host of colourful phrases)and call female protestors “hot bitches” , maybe he would arrest them all on the spot!
It would be facetious of us to not to ask people to solve crime by reporting it whenever it is witnessed so hear any naughty words on TV, see them in print, manage to catch your neighbour saying F*** when he hits his finger with a hammer (be ready with ear to glass on the wall so you don’t miss any lawbreaking) why not call 08457 444888 and do your duty as an upright citizen by reporting the miscreant/s? I am sure that West Mercia police would be very grateful after all they’ve poured over £4million down the drain prosecuting peaceful protestors maybe they could avoid dealing with actual crime by going after the sweary marys next?
In an half arsed attempt to keep party-goers and piss-heads out on a Saturday night quiet – because obviously you have no right to raise your voice, cops are now giving out lolly pops to clubbers to get them to shut up. Operation Shhh as it has been coined will, according neighbourhood beat manager PC Andy Hocking help keep revellers calm.
“The thought behind this is that if you are sucking on a lolly, you are not going to be shouting and hollering. We will know if it’s a success if we get fewer complaints about noise.” Said PC Hocking.
Let’s hope the E numbers in these lollies won’t see silent head butting crimes increase too much followed by hundreds of hospital cases involving the various removal of lolly pops and sticks from eyes, throats and other orifices.
It delights us to bring everyone back to the good ole days of rave dummies which were seized at Stansted Airport back in July 2004 because of the danger of choking, maybe lollies will be different?
Ironically with the huge amount of underage drinking in towns and cities is it any wonder that the cops are handing out sweets, lets hope these kids remember that timeless advice given out to us all by our parents, never accept sweets from bastards.
However, these lolly pop techniques might prove more popular with fellow binge drinkers than some of the tactics dished out on “Street Crime UK” like pressure pointing and kicking out peoples legs from under people just for questioning police officers actions.
We have taken the idea one step further and developed this idea into a riot control device we hope you will like…
Anyway my sugar rush is making me angry and I have boundless energy that I need to take out on someone I have to stop typing now. GOODBYE!!!!!!!!
Our hypothetical campaign situation resulting in a civil liberties cluster-fuck happy reading…
Vivisector: I am a vivisector at ToxiKill Ltd.
Protester: I am a campaigner that thinks that ToxiKill Ltd does pointless and dangerous experiments on animals which cost human lives as well as animals I am going to protest outside the lab.
Police Evidence Team: Note new campaign started against ToxiKill Ltd – three campaigners ID currently unknown.
Vivisector (to police): Someone is outside our business holding a placard with a picture of a dog that has been killed in animal experiments, even though this is something I routinely see at work, I don’t like being reminded of my unethical job and I feel slightly uneasy.
Police (to Protesters): Someone has told us you have been “anti social” by displaying a banner which depicts animals which have died as a result of vivisection. Using Section 50 of the Police Reform Act 2002 I am asking you for your names addresses and date of birth (although I don’t have any power to ask for DOB I will tell you that you could be arrested if you don’t give it).
Police Evidence Team: Campaigners identified.
Campaign continues for four months with police presence at every demonstration including evidence gatherers.
Protester (to other protesters): Here’s an idea, why don’t we protest against the companies supply ToxiKill Ltd with lab cages?
Other Protester: That’s an excellent idea, why don’t we do some demos against the people who supply them with animals as well?
Police Evidence Team: Campaign tactics have changed suppliers of ToxiKill now being campaigned against tactics peaceful although suppliers say they feel distressed by the protests and they feel that the profits are down since the campaigning started.
Protester (via Megaphone to Arrowlight Biosciences limited): We are here to stay, Arrowlight until you drop ToxiKill we will be here every day!
Police Evidence Team: Blackmail noted.
Protesters then trespass onto Arrowlight property which is a civil offence not a criminal matter unless they are asked to leave then if they refuse it is a criminal matter of aggravated trespass.
Bob (Arrowlight) 999 call: It is Bob here from Arrowlight, protesters are outside our doors which a banner and shouting we feel scared even though there are three of them and they seem calm and two hundred staff members!
Police (arrive at Arrowlight): Under section 14 of the Public Order act I am moving your protest over the road which is roughly 200 metres from the entrance of Arrowlight outside some other place. Making your protest ineffective.
The demonstrations continue for 4 months some protesters are recorded swearing at a van delivering beagle puppies to ToxiKill, police don’t take action but document the swearing.
Meanwhile, Operation LibertyHoover is started.
Police take statements from staff and ask if people would be willing to testify in court if needed. Many staff members agree as they are told it could stop the protests all together. They don’t really care for the right to protest they just want the protests to stop.
Police called to Arrowlight after protests knock on the windows and shout “puppy killers” and “how do you sleep at night animal abusers”. Even though this is a possible section 5 public order offence the police are told not take any action to stop the protest.
One month passes…
The three protesters are raided, their companion animals are let onto the streets and one activist is pushed down the stairs whilst handcuffed behind his back. All computer equipment, campaign materials, clothing, cars and phones are taken the houses are stripped bare.
They are held for twenty hours and questioned by CID and various other officers they are shown emails which they have sent calling for others to protest and told about phone records that show a clear leader in the eyes of the police.
Questions like “who updates the website” and “who is the leader” are asked. “Someone must be organising these demonstrations! Who is the leader?” The police focus on one protester who has been something of a liaison with the press and also seems to (according to phone records) phone other members of the campaign more than others have phoned him.
Police continue to look for a hierarchy even though it is just a couple of individuals who care about animals and have a common goal of stopping vivisection. There is no leader, people are told about times and dates of demonstrations if they wish to attend they are welcome to. The police make the person who turns up on all the demos and makes more phone calls the leader.
They are all charged with Section 145 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act for “Conspiracy to interfere with contractual relationships so as to harm animal research organisation”.
The bail conditions disallow them to attend any animal rights events, speak with other activists and they are given a curfew where they are to be at home between 1900 and 0700. One activist suffers from depression waiting for the trial to start after being disallowed to speak with their friends they find the bail conditions unbearable.
The trial starts a year later, all three plead not guilty, the jury are told about certain security precautions as the trial might make them a target for animal rights extremists. The jury fear for their safety and they start the trial with the mindset that the defendants are dangerous individuals. Extra security is added in the court room to heighten this fear and people giving evidence give it behind a screen as not to be seen by anyone else in the court room.
Witness (ToxiKill worker): I felt intimidated by the protesters I didn’t like the way they said I killed puppies. I found it hard to work at times thinking about having to drive past them again.
Police evidence is shown and a person who isn’t even a defendant swearing at a white van is aired for the first time. Also video footage of protesters knocking on windows is shown, this footage also doesn’t include any of the defendants knocking on the window.
The trial is dragged out for four months, two of the three are found guilty and one is given a 14 month suspended sentence. Although the jury don’t know this, they assume that people wouldn’t face years in prison for so little.
The others are sentenced to four years.
Four years in prison, for:
- One person who wasn’t even a defendant swearing on a demonstration (harassment)
- Other people who weren’t defendants knocking on a window. (harassment)
- Statements from workers saying they found it difficult to work with the protesters outside. (harassment)
- Statements from witnesses who said they were intimidated although the protesters were outside a high security laboratory site with five security on the gate. (harassment)
- Telling your friends that there is a demonstration on Tuesday (conspiracy)
- Telling a supplier you would continue to protest until they stopped doing what they were legally allowed to do (blackmail).
Previous to SOCPA these offences were a section 5 of the public order act and were about as serious as swearing in the street at anyone.
SOCPA takes tiny offences such as Section 5 and then for use against animal rights protesters makes them into huge crimes for which activists can face years in prison.
People can ignore the facts and keep saying it’s only because they are animal rights that they get raided all the time, and you can live in denial that it will never happen to your movement. These laws make a mockery of the freedom to protest and should be recognised for how much they destroy our civil liberties regardless of the movement.
First they came for the animal rights protesters.
I was not an animal rights protester:
Then they came for <insert your movement here>
Then there was no-one left to speak out for me.
Disclaimer: The names of companies, individuals are fictitious and are not intended to resemble any real person or business.
When asked, most people would agree that all people who have been charged with an offence have the right to a fair trial? I wonder if a trial might still be considered fair if for example the victim of a robbery or rape was the judge in the case?
Impartiality has to be the foundation of a fair trial, so why am I recoiling in horror to find out that the judge in the latest SOCPA trial is a hunter? Yes I’m serious, the judge for six people facing possible prison sentences for conspiracy to “interfere with contractual relationships so as to harm animal research organisation” spends his spare time when he is not a judge shooting animals out of the sky for fun.
Not to mention of course the fact that the jury are being privately bused in each day so that the scary extremists don’t “disappear them” in a Mafia Movie style which is a first for animal rights activists. The whole facade obviously serves the fair trial well in creating a false sense of insecurity for the jury so they actually feel like these people are a threat to everything good and pure anywhere…
To add insult to the fair trial, an announcement by the procecution on the first day of the trial told of an activist being arrested in Herefordshire “at this moment” even though the arrest was nothing to do with Sequani or even vivisection and how protests were happening even whilst they were in court.
We wish the Sequani 6 all the best in there trial and hope that SOCPA laws are recognised for the farce that it is and someone wakes up to the systematic removal of our civil liberties and realises the implications for the protest movement as a whole.
Protests continue at Sequani with a campaign being stepped up by other activists from around the country, protests take place on the first Monday of every month and any time people wish to protest there.
You can support the Sequani 6 by protesting at Sequani. More information here.
Sorry about the downtime, we at NETCU Watch had some hosting issues and are now going to be running NW from WordPress with a new domain so update your bookmarks…
The new address is WWW.NETCUWATCH.ORG.UK
We also have some fancy pants new banners coming very soon which you can add to your site to link to NW and support our rants and raves about Netcu, Police, Government and of course animals abusers.
We are also looking for contributors to NW, if you have any information, photos or articles you think would work on the NW site please email us info(at)netcuwatch.org.uk
Happy New Year