Cops at the World Day for Animals in Labs London March. 25th April 2009


Seen at the G20 bank protests on April 1st and 2nd.




Please use the comments if you can ID this officer who was taking notes about the march. Reference (COP1)


Use the comments if you can further ID this Super Reference (COP2)


Seen at the G20 bank protests on April 1st and 2nd.





Further ID needed please use comments to help us ID this officer Reference (COP3)

Secrets, Spies and poorly forumlated lies.

Aha! And so it came to pass that Ian aka Anthony did wear a beagle costume and lo he did decieve the righteous ones and sell information for much dosh.

As he sits allegedly in Gran Canaria pontificating on morality Anthony/Ian/whatever who collaborated with the Times and Timothy Lawson Cruttenden on “exposing” SHAC may like to consider the fact that SHAC is still strong and the animal rights movement is spreading accross the globe.

Correction time…

The ALF is a banner, it has no membership and has no leaders, it is not difficult to infiltrate the ALF, if you wish to get to the heart of the ALF then look no further than the hearts of the compassionate individual within.

SHAC started in 1999 NOT 2001 (for fucks sake this is BASIC stuff)

Heather and Mel were not girlfriend and boyfriend.

HLS do so much more than test drugs, look at their website why omit the fact that they also torture innocent creatures to death for stuff like artificial sweeteners?

Greg, Natasha, Heather and Mel were in no way responsible for Gladys being dug up or Brian being bashed on the bonce and there is absolutely no evidence that they were.

This is akin to blaming Andrew Baker with the Bhopal disaster because Union Carbide are an HLS customer, hey let us blame him personally for the murder of Ken Saro Wiwa as well because Shell are also an HLS customer? CONSPIRACY OR WHAT only thing is HLS are connected to those who torture maim and kill other human beings as opposed to a bit of graffiti or a rude letter from unknown persons.

Anthony/Ian/whatever says he is proud. Of what exactly? Doing a well paid job and shafting those who at least can say they have done their utmost to stem the tide of destruction and hatred against innocent souls?

We can’t wait to see the book!

Netcu Watch // The Truth About Gladys Hammond

Gladys Hammond 

At the recent sentencing of the SHAC 7 the alleged theft of Gladys Hammond’s body from her grave was mentioned yet again despite having nothing to do with the SHAC campaign. The constant ‘resurrection’ of Gladys is clearly ‘used’ to convey to the public that all animal rights campaigners are callous fanatics. While most of the media have mentioned the grave-theft at one time or another none of them have made any effort whatsoever to authenticate the story. 

The Alleged Grave-Theft 

Allegedly it all began on the 6th October 2004 when the Staffordshire police would have you believe that two protesters visited the quiet countryside village of Yoxall in Staffordshire at the dead of night, armed with one fold-up spade, to steal Gladys Hammond from her grave. Anyone who has visited Yoxall will know that the graveyard is completely surrounded by houses. A female OAP was then said to have travelled some distance with the corpse before carrying it (dressed in a pink shroud) up four flights of stairs to the flat she shared with her Jack Russell, who was very partial to a bone ! Nineteen months later, in May 2006, Gladys Hammond was supposedly found on Cannock Chase. 

Contradictions in the Alleged Grave Theft 

1. An 84 year old was said to have noticed the “disturbed” grave whilst police photographs showed a professionally dug grave with precise sides and corners. 
2. The vicar said the plaque was on the coffin lid whereas police photographs showed the plaque lying on the soil nearby and there was no coffin lid. 
3. Police said bones were left at the grave which was a contradiction to what Janet Palmer (Gladys Hammond’s daughter) said. She stated she “was relieved that her mother’s body had been kept intact”. 
4. Police said the gravestone was “smashed” yet police photographs clearly showed Gladys Hammond’s name on the complete gravestone. 
5. The Forestry Commission reported the corpse could only have lain where it was found for a very short time whereas the police stated it had been there for a considerable length of time. 

The OAP 

The OAP was subsequently arrested on 1 December 2004 at 08.20hrs. She was totally unaware that her arrest had been headline news on the local news stations at 08.00hrs. As she was escorted from her flat by 3 detectives there were 6 police officers with large boxes waiting on the stairs to search her flat and seize her property. She was taken to the police station and questioned on and off throughout the day. The 6 officers found no trace of Gladys in the flat and the OAP was released without charge later that evening. The next day, despite making international media headlines as a grave-robber and named as a defendant in the High Court Application to ban all protests at the guinea-pig farm, the Judge allowed the OAP to continue her protests ! 

When the OAP eventually learned that the witness who had identified her as a “5’10” male with not dark hair seen standing as lookout at Yoxall cemetery in mid September 2004” and later changed her description to a “5’4” female with no hair” was the Rev. Jenny Lister vicar of Yoxall she couldn’t understand why a vicar would blatantly lie about her until she received a cutting from the local paper through the post which told of the arrest and charging of the Rev. Peter Lister (Jenny’s husband) for sexually abusing a 14 year old boy some years previously. She immediately thought what a great incentive for the vicar to lie if she could “do a deal” with the CPS to incriminate the OAP if they dropped the sexual abuse charge against her husband. This is exactly what the CPS did at his trial in Northumbria in 2005. Would vicars lie ? Well Jenny Lister certainly lied because the OAP had never visited Yoxall cemetery. Peter Lister also lied because the OAP has since met the person he sexually abused which means the two vicars have got away with horrific crimes whilst being aided and abetted by the Staffordshire police and the CPS. Meanwhile the OAP’s solicitors have been refused the legal aid she needs in order to clear her name because the Legal Funding Commission “do not consider her case to be in the public’s interests”.

Response to reporting on SHAC sentencing.

Well the mainstream was very muted maybe because of Barrack Obama’s inauguration, maybe because the public may wonder what all the fuss is about, do a bit of research and start questioning the wisdom and morality of forcing pesticides down a beagle’s throat!

Only a couple of responses really… The judge Mr Butterfield stated that companies “had the right to conduct vital biomedical research”, well they do, shame that most of them torture animals instead often for trivial crap such as a something to make salmon a bit pinker, as long as the consumer buys the product and does not die of cancer too soon who cares? WE DO and we will continue to care for all victims human and non human. Lord Drayton science minister also chuntered on about “life saving medical research” adding that animals are killed only “where absolutely necessary” which includes nasal decongestants, floor cleaners, diet pills, Viagra and cosmetic Botox. Many people may not agree that testing a floor cleaner on a primate is “absolutely necessary” but this is how the government think.

The other old chestnut was that the defendants themselves did everything unlawful against HLS. They did not, they ran a campaign against a large unethical company, no evidence to our knowledge was given to the court of any of the defendants sending incendiary devices etc. Some have commented on the fact that one defendant shouted something that could be construed as threatening our response is that we think that a 4 year sentence for that is utterly ludicrous and highly politically motivated. If this was a neighbour dispute the police may have had a word about restraint at most so let us get this into perspective.

The sentences were meant to crush dissent, either that or the state actually believes that protests in which no-one was harmed are worse than trying to kill someone, actually killing someone, rape etc. Let us compare the sentences with real crime bearing in mind that Greg, Heather, Natasha and Gavin have a life sentence considering the ASBOs and that the judge remarked that he would like to have the option of an indeterminate sentence in this sort of case:

First up Neil Pringle who grabbed a woman and started strangling her in a terrifying sexual assault during which she was rendered unconscious and he tried to rape her. She walloped him and in 2008 he was finally brought to justice. Sentence 6 years and an entry on the sex register.

Peter Harfield raped a woman only weeks after she had given birth. He hunted her through a public park. The police did not believe her and it took 25 years before he was brought before a court and sentenced to 6 years and a lifelong entry on the sex offenders register.

Anthony Allen raped his own daughter repeatedly when she was a child. 11 years inside the same sentence as Heather!

Christopher Lewis and Martin Walker killed a 16 year old boy (manslaughter) by forcing him into deep water laughing as he drowned, prior to this he was punched, slapped, kicked and threatened with death. 5 ½ years so actually killing another human being is more acceptable than running a campaign in which no-one was killed according to the state! No ASBOs for them.

Tracey Matthews has just today been sentenced to 8 years in prison for kidnap, false imprisonment and perverting the course of justice! Not even in NETCU’s worst nightmares would any animal liberationist do what she did to a child. Heather will be in prison for 3 years longer AND be restrained by an ASBO indefinitely.

However badly the defendants are portrayed, even taking into consideration the lies and exaggerations, in comparison with predators that rape and kill for their own gratification these are ridiculously over the top sentences which aim to crush all dissent. To those who have asked why 3 defendants pleaded guilty it was very clear that this was to be a show trial they simply refused to play that game and it was their decision, not anyone else’s that counts.

Finally we would like to stress that although anger is justified against the police, CPS and judiciary in this case any premeditated, unlawful act is most certainly not in our view. Other defendants will have to face Judge Butterfield in only a few weeks, Mel’s retrial is ongoing and 3 activists are on trial in April all in all 11 more activists could face the same fate as the UK SHAC 7. We urge that no-one act on the fact that they may know where Neil Butterfield lives after this information was posted on Indymedia. At present the police have already got a warrant against an Indymedia server despite the fact that the address was removed quickly. Our enemies could use this not only to increase security in court rooms during forthcoming trials but to “protect” the jury, maybe by having them bussed in under police escort as they did at the Sequani trial. None of this will help the defendants as from day 1 the jury will be told in no uncertain terms that they are dangerous which is why anyone attending court has been asked to display nothing but the utmost restraint.

UK SHAC 7 Prisoner details please write with letters of support and solidarity!

With yesterdays sentencing please send letters of support to the UK SHAC 7. For more info on what they can receive at the prisons please check

Dan Amos VN7818
HMP Winchester
Romsey Road
Winchester SO22 5DF

Gregg Avery TA7450
HMP Winchester
Romsey Road
Winchester, SO22 5DF

Natasha Avery NR8987
HMP Bronzefield
Woodthorpe Road
Ashford, Middx TW15 3JZ.

Gavin Medd-Hall WV9475
HMP Winchester
Romsey Road
Winchester SO22 5DF

Heather Nicholson VM4859
HMP Bronzefield
Woodthorpe Road
Middx TW15 3JZ.

Dan Wadham WV9474
HMP Winchester
Romsey Road
Winchester SO22 5DF

Steve Pearl and Netcu we know where you work…

After some netcu related hilarity during the past few days demonstrations at Harlan, HLS Wooley and HLS Occold we took PCs Bacon and the officer we know as “Dave” in to the main Cambridgeshire Police Headquarters. And a police officer dropped a real clanger.

Please address all complaints regarding NETCU policing policy not to the PO Box but to the actual geographical address which is now confirmed as.

Steven Pearl
Constabulary HQ.
Hinchingbrooke Park.
PE29 6NP

How we know this?

We drove into the HQ, a friendly bobby said “Can I help you gentlemen”, we said “yes we have an interview with Superintendent Pearl”, “Oh” he said, “If you would like to sign in at the office over there and then speak to those officers (pointing at Bacon who is trying to get out of the car as quickly as possible to let the officer not to give up the Netcu hideout)”, “So we are in the right place then?” we ask “Oh yes, his office is over there” (points to the left of the building.)

For those needing to hear it from the horses mouth phone the main 0845 number ask for the HQ address and say, can we write to Sup Pearl there? Hehe.

Communication ends……………………….

How you might go to prison for not knowing or knowing someone…

“Persons Unknown” (the illusive terrorist group) made a special visit to seal the deal in the latest SHAC trial. Whoever these persons unknown are they sure to drop us in it time and time again. Apparently the defence were part of a group which torched cars, used blackmail and intimidation to further the campaign against HLS.

“They conspired to do A B and C … with Persons or Persons Unknown.” – Who are persons unknown?

Persons unknown are the naughty ones, in the daylight hours they could be teachers, taxi drivers, the unemployed, squatters, hippies, tennis coaches, midwives or anarchists. In the evenings they don balaclavas, gloves, lock picks, paint stripper and various other tools of the Persons Unknown trade and they take direct action to try and stop the insidious murderous industry which is the vivisection / arms trade / bio-tech / etc industry.

The above conspiracy law can link you to these individuals whether you know them to talk to or even if you have never met them at all. By legally organising (protest / stalls / leafleting) against these industries and there suppliers above ground, you may inspire someone who you don’t even know to take illegal direct action. e.g. paint strip a car / make a death threat etc. Or they may have sworn at an employee at your local arms manufacturers.

Now whether you support direct action or not, or whether you support vivisection or not it simply doesn’t matter. We are in a situation where the police don’t even need to prove you did something wrong or EVEN that you knew about the actions taking place. They can still just say you conspired. Sorry.

Now lets draw up another hypothetical, I smash up a shop because I’m pissed out of my face. I am arrested. I am charged. I am convicted. I get a slap on the wrist and pay compensation to the shop keeper. Probably not even a conviction in reality, its probably not really worth taking any further.

I smash a shop window that supplies pencils to HLS / Sequani (insert your favourite bastards here) and you are looking at 2 years minimum, better yet, you aren’t even the person who smashed the window, you are the press officer / website updater for the campaign against said bastard company. You are looking at 5 years for doing sweet FA. Because lets face it you probably knew the person and even if you didn’t they don’t give a flying shit.

Press are fed story after story saying how they were “PART OF A CAMPAIGN” that used illegal tactics (not that THEY used illegal tactics) past actions are dragged up again to remind the public of why millions of tax money is being thrown at a generally peaceful movement who has never killed anyone.

Having said all this about direct action, evidence used in court has included, polite letters, polite phone calls, using the word murderer, scum or even in one case writing the word scum in the dirt on the floor.

Job done, does anyone care about the sentences? These terrorists would rather see a rat saved that YOUR child. Aren’t they the people who blow up scientists? I bet they accept animal tested drugs if they needed them!

These are just a few of the seeds sewn by the media, phama / vivisection lobbyists, NETCU, CPS and other government spineless faecal outlets.

We live in serious times when the animal liberation movement is being portrayed as the Goliath and the Pharmaceutical Lobby, Police and Government as the David. Some lobbyist deserves a serious serious pay rise apparently.

For those of you reading this, we as the animal liberation movement ask only one thing, regardless of you view on animal exploitation or our actions as activists. We need solidarity, we need you to recognise how the police are trying so hard to marginalise our movement. If not for our sake, for your sake, because when you oppose industry and the status quo you WILL feel the full brunt of the opposition if not now then soon.

All the best and solidarity to all prisoners, activists and anyone who gives a fuck about anything and is willing to take action.


SHAC trial ends – defendants jailed with disproportionate sentences!

SHAC trial ends with ridiculous sentences, Heather Nicholson jailed for 11 years; Gregg and Natasha Avery sentenced to nine years each; Gavin Medd-Hall an eight-year prison sentence Daniel Wadham jailed for five years Gerrah Selby and Dan Amos were both sentenced to four years in prison.

More mainstream bullshit can be viewed in the usual locations. We will be responding on our website against each lie that the media pump out of there pharma funded anuses as so keep your eyes pealed!

Hypocrisy, Terrorism and Extremism.

I have been looking at a few forums regarding the first SHAC trial and would like to respond to some of the main points.


To start with the hypocrisy charge. Animal rights activists protesting against vivisection, it is argued, still use animal tested products. This is a very fair point which needs addressing to the best of my humble abilities. My personal view is that for a start everything water, aromatherapy oils, homeopathic medicines, mobile phones, pesticides etc, etc have at some stage been tested on animals. To avoid animal tested products is well nigh impossible in our society although we should do so as far as is practicable. A similar charge could also be made against climate change activists who could be labelled “hypocrites” if any fossil fuels are used or against human rights activists who will find it very difficult to boycott Chinese products (this is also well nigh impossible).

For some reason those in favour of animal testing always argue that we should not take medication as this will have been tested on animals, they never argue about ink in printers or additives in soft drinks (chemical laden fizzy pop is an abomination which afflicts the young). Of course logically it would be more ethically viable for an animal rights activist to take paracetomol an analgesic and anti pyretic which has been around for decades than an artificial sweetener such as “splendour” which was only recently tested on animals. If we look at a drug such as ergot (from a fungus on wheat) used to stop post partum haemorrhage it was in use thousands of years ago in ancient Eygpt. All medication has been tested on animals but we argue that there are other, better ways of checking drugs are safe to use.

There is very little information concerning how a product was tested, where it was tested, on which species, when it was tested and whether or not it contains bits of dead animal. The onus should be on the drug and assorted animal testing industries to provide this information to the public so that informed choices can be made by those who do not wish to use animal tested products for ethical , scientific, medical or religious reasons. Someone then might decide that they do not wish to use a floor cleaner tested on dogs at HLS and reach for the borax instead.

Roche produce vitamin K which is given to nearly every baby in the UK to prevent the rare but potentially lethal haemolytic disease of the newborn. It contains glychocholic acid from bovine bile which is hardly vegetarian or Hindu friendly, I also suspect that as the bovine bile is probably not Halal or Kosher strict Muslims and Jews may be none too impressed with Roche followed closely by those who are rightly or wrongly concerned about CJD. Maybe we should campaign for very clear labelling after all the vivisectors have proposed that they label animal tested things as animal tested why not go one step further and tell us when and for what reason. I know that aspirin has been around for a very long time and can use it with a clear conscience but it could be labelled as animal tested recently as ongoing experiments on everything already on the market are commonplace, I would also like to know the reason why it is being repeatedly tested. Aconite, a homeopathic remedy has been around for a long time, I believe it is ethical to use, if a drug company commission animal tests on aconite does that make my choice unethical? Of course not.

Some of the most sinister comments have centred around denying animal rights people access to medical assistance. Animal rights people pay taxes and many of us have worked in the NHS for many years. In fact I might be the biggest hypocrite of all because rather than dying when I was attacked by a police officer I accepted surgery on several occasions to my smashed femur, a blood transfusion, surgery to my face (my cheek was hanging off) and antibiotics to control the MRSA and pseudomonas which wracked my body. I could have denied all treatment and died of course and there are a few of our number who would have done just that. It would have meant on a practical level that they would have put my leg in traction and hoped for the best causing more disruption for the NHS staff and indeed a murder charge rather than GBH for the PC concerned if I had died within a year. On a moral level quite simply I believe that we should use drugs and surgical techniques that already exist. It would be highly unethical for example to ban insulin just because it was once tested on animals. Drugs could have been developed in other ways with quite probably better results.

Not one of us whether vivisector or animal rights activist can possibly know everything about every drug but we want animal testing to stop, not scientific medical research. This does not involve throwing out medications which have been used often for decades just because they were tested on animals. Of course presuming that xenotransplantation ever happens it would be the height of hypocrisy for an animal rights activist to accept an organ from a pig killed to order. I find it rather despicable to be told by vivisectionists that not only is it acceptable to be attacked by the police but that I should then be denied access to what is the prerogative of everyone in the UK the NHS , followed by whining over how THEY felt “harassed” by the incident.

Furthermore chiropractors, homeopaths, aromatherapists, herbalists etc are only available to those who pay privately. Someone with mild depression might be better off seeing an aromatherapst rather than being dosed up with Prozac. Medication is often dished out as the first resort when it should be the last in many cases. I would have a health service which in addition to “conventional” medicine and surgery would also have practitioners such as highly trained chiropractors, arnica for those post surgery, an emphasis on diet and aromatherapy oils in every drug cupboard.

Animal testing is also an inexact process. No-one really knows what will happen in the human body until humans have used a product for a considerable amount of time. Rats are a different creature altogether and can survive things we cannot. To extrapolate data from experimenting on rats is dangerous enough when we regard life saving medication but to test a food colouring on rats and then feed it to young human children on the mere assumption it is safe because the rats did not die is positively evil profiteering, HLS do this every day along with all of their contract testing lab’ chums. Even more disgusting is the fact that if I want to avoid an animal tested pesticide I can’t it is in the air, the water, the earth and being absorbed by my skin, HLS(and others) test a pesticide on animals tell everyone it is safe and whether we like it or not we are forced to absorb it into our bodies passing it on to the next generation through the womb and breastmilk. I for one do not trust HLS to rubber stamp anything as safe for me to eat, drink or breathe as they have been known to falsify results and they do not bother to monitor the animals 24 hours a day perhaps missing vital clues.

The Nazis experimented on human prisoners, they came up with some useful (and some not useful) data on hypothermia after torturing their victims which has been used by others since. If they had found a cure for cancer I would utterly condemn the methodology, lament for the murdered and put steps in place to stop such an atrocity ever happening again but the cure should still be used. In fact Marion Sims experimented on the poor and on slaves in the US and he is still celebrated as a great gynaecologist, the Sims speculum is still in use today. No-one (I hope) would ever seriously suggest that it is OK to experiment on innocent humans without fully informed consent (or even not so innocent ones) and I would argue that it would be throwing out the baby with the bath water to exclude every medical and other intervention which came into being by abusing humans. Using for example techniques perfected by the Nazis to save a life on an air/sea rescue operation does not involve condoning the atrocity. Driving on a road once made by slaves does not condone slavery.

Experiments on humans without their consent have been conducted by drug companies this century notably Pfizer. What I would suggest is that those responsible are put on trial for mass murder and if found guilty incarcerated for the rest of their lives and the company’s assets seized. The victims or their families should be compensated handsomely, sod the share holders. Then if for example they have actually found out something useful such as a cure for Parkinsons that should be used for the benefit of humankind.

Some people posting have suggested that animal rights activists should be carted off to HLS and experimented on. I do not think that this was meant seriously, if it was of course if the law is even handed this would be regarded as a threat to torture and kill, so be careful out there we would hate you all to play into our hands!


Were the suffragettes “terrorists”? Or the miners? Or the feminists? Campaigns have always consisted of those who operate legally and others unlawfully. In the 70s some fire bombed porn shops in the name of feminism, in the 90s miners went to Michael Heseltine’s home and dug up his lawn, the suffragettes massed on Knightsbridge with hammers smashing in every shop window, did home demos with hundreds of people, set fire to buildings and anything and everything stopping short of seriously injuring or killing people. The animal rights movement over a long distinguished history dating back to when the Band of Mercy wrecked grouse butts back in Victorian times have not killed anyone and this is no coincidence. Animal rights is based upon the premise that humans have rights and that it is despicable to infer inferiority due to race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, language, physical or mental impairment etc. We simply go one step further by believing that it is despicable also to infer inferiority on the basis of species.

Killing someone even in extremis defending self or those who cannot defend themselves is a very heavy undertaking which none have been able as yet to enact. Respect for human rights is part and parcel of animal rights actual terrorism by which I mean no regard for life and limb has as yet not happened. The UK SHAC 7 ran a legal campaign which continues, they are not terrorists. For the record they have been found guilty of conspiring to blackmail with persons unknown, they have not been convicted of doing the multitude of things suggested in the press, nor is it in any way proven that they knew the people who did these things, approved or encouraged. Persons unknown did stuff, other people, those who are openly stating that they are opposed to HLS will go to prison for it.

Imagine a campaign against phonemasts. Should those in the public eye go to prison for up to 14 years just because persons unknown to them have carried out arson attacks on said masts? Even though they have put disclaimers against illegal acts on their website? Even though a barrister has sanctioned every leaflet and newsletter?

The conspiracy to blackmail charge could have been used against the Suffragettes, the miners and he feminist movement as well as many modern counterparts. Methinks that we have not seen the last of this charge against protestors.


One of the things that concerns me is that the reason why SHAC campaigned against HLS is being vilified more than the tactics used by some people who remain for the most part unknown. Surely if it is wrong to send a used condom or brand someone a paedophile it is wrong for any reason whether the sender is trying to make a point about vivisection or child slave labour? Much of the debate centres on the premise that animals are nothing and that it is heretical to even suggest otherwise let alone try and protect them from greedy selfish fellow humans. The word “traitor” has even been uttered on Oxford Gossip re to the human race (now there’s a suprise) and even a suggestion to hang the defendants (made in jest I’m sure..I hope!) suggesting that it is not the so-called crime that is at issue but the motive i.e compassion for other creatures.

More nauseating are the occasional comments from animal rights activists trying to disassociate themselves from SHAC on the grounds that they do not approve of everything the media have reported the defendants did. I actually do not approve of every single thing done in the name of animal rights, first of all I don’t know of every single action but I do know that the media have blatantly lied to the public in actually reporting that the 7 defendants sent incendiary devices, yucky things in the post and hate mail themselves. Logic and common sense makes it impossible that Dan A, Dan W and Gerrah could have dug up Gladys Hammonds grave when at that time they were still at school and had probably not even heard of SHAC, HLS or the Newchurch campaign.

It is however brilliant to see that vivisection is being discussed and thought about albeit in the narrow confines of cosmetic and medical testing. Why are we not discussing pesticides, GM crops, plastics, chemicals, paint, noxious gases, artificial sweeteners, health foods, fridge coolants, chemical cleaners, aromatherapy oils, cosmetic botox, ad infinitum all of which are forced on our animal brothers and sisters before being forced on us? Come on then all those who support animal testing I can’t wait to see you justification for testing floor cleaner on a wild caught primate something I would call extreme cruelty which would induce a violent response from Joe public if anyone were to do this in any town centre.

A few words to all those who are naive enough to believe the crap they have been spoonfed by the media;

The police lie, it’s true sorry to burst the bubble. They lie all the time look at what they said about Earth First! in the Observer. They even have been known to fib in court. They arrest activists illegally and then have to compensate them financially.

The police via NETCU have said that they are in favour of animal testing. They have openly taken a political stance and if this does not bother you well….it should. The police should hardly have had links on their site to pro vivisection lobby groups such as the Research Defence Society. Imagine if the police said publicly on a website that they supported abortion or shooting pheasants very, very bad. NETCU and all their little underlings are nothing more than the lackeys of the vivisection industry who would love to play lap dog to EDO and EON as well.

The courts are not fair. Do not think ever that you have heard the whole story in court. Behind the scene evidence is omitted, threats made and all sorts of shenanegans. The courts are infinitely better than stringing people up from the nearest lamp post but favour the powerful and the wealthy. Senior executives from certain corporations could if the police put their mind to it be tried for conspiracy to blackmail, pollute, murder and perjure but it is a bit unlikely. It is however interesting to fantasise about how much worse a company like Shell would look like if put under the same scrutiny as SHAC using the same state resources. I think that the individuals cherry picked for the occasion would look positively demonic.

Some of the “victims” we all hear about are not very nice people. They have also sent yucky things in the post including a dead mouse and loads of weird racist stuff. In fact during the Newchurch campaign pro vivisection yobs cracked a few skulls beating protestors whilst the police turned their backs on the assaults. My apologies again for ruining the image of the benign, besieged, brainbox who would have cured cancer by now if it wasn’t for those wretched villains in the animal rights movement.

Vivisectors are flesh and blood not deities. Somehow the police, the government and media have deified them the end result of which is greater protection in law than those who actually do save lives such as Doctors, Nurses, Firemen all of whom often run the gauntlet of abuse and assaults at work. Punch the GP because he “dissed” you and you might get community service if you are very unlucky, demonstrate peacefully outside a place that makes cages for laboratory animals you could be sent to prison for 4.5 years and have your liberty curtailed for a further 5 years with a CRASBO. This is also a prime example of human supremist extremism.

Hope that this might be of assistance to someone.

Lynn Sawyer

Proportionality and the vilification of the animal rights movement

Proportionality and the vilification of the animal rights movement
As we do our best to reduce our carbon footprint instead of central heating (which is for wimps…..only joking) we have a woodburning stove on which kettles are boiled and food cooked throughout the winter. For 2 years now old legal papers from injunctions and all manner of cases have helped us to do this lighting a nice warm fire for us all to bask in. Regrettably these papers cannot be recycled due to the confidential information contained within and we are near the end. Yesturday though some of the letters sent to HLS suppliers/customers emerged from the kindling box. Some of these were along the lines of “die scum die” etc and these were put up as part of bundles of evidence as harassment, fair enough although letters sent to some of us were of a similar sentiment.

However many of the letters were very polite and included the address of the sender, hardly in accordance with a criminal mastermind blackmail plot and if anyone felt “harassed” by them then they are delicate souls incapable of living in the real world, or, bare faced liars. All of the letters, however, are supposedly “evidence” of “harassment”. Some quotes from the letters are as follows, all are polite in their entirety, all were addressed to the company not a named individual.

“I would like to take this opportunity to respectfully request that you do all within your capability to ensure your company ceases trading with those nasty people……Thankyou for taking the time to read my letter…..Peace and God’s blessing to you”.

“Please read the leaflet I have enclosed”.

“I urge you to stop dealing with this heinous company”

“Animal tested drugs cause 18000 deaths in the UK every year”

“Please sever ties with HLS, thankyou”

“Why continue to support animal and human suffering to benefit fraudulent drug companies”

It has not been unknown for the police to threaten to arrest people who have written such letters. It’s nice and easy for them as letter writers have honestly given their home addresses and of course the officers concerned can pretend to themselves and the gullible that they are dealing with hardened terrorists rather than an octogenarian bookseller. Of course vivisectionists and all their sympathisers/lackeys in the police, the courts, government and the media will argue that polite letters should only be immune from prosecution if addressed to an MP or a newspaper but we would argue that many companies and their employees should first of all be able to cope with protest letters, secondly they might not be aware of the cruelty inflicted and wish to decide to make a stand against it. After all when some Marsh employees found out that the company they worked for insured HLS they created a huge fuss within the organisation and were utterly outraged. One very good reason why activists should be accessible and kind to workers many of whom may well be supportive of animal rights and potentially become very helpful allies.

It is easy to understand why people argue “rather a rat die than my baby”, this is visceral, it is natural and we empathise after all we too suffer from illness as do our close relatives. However we argue that the same argument could be used on the lines of “rather a murderer die than my baby” or even “rather a dear old retired nonagenarian nurse with Alzeimers die than my baby” it is all utterly unacceptable as all are sentient beings. Futhermore we only know if the results from the rats (or the murderer or the nonagenarian both of whom are adults NOT babies)are accurate once the baby has been given the drug in question, it may work, it may make things worse. Thousands of people die every year as a result of drugs tested as safe on non-human animals which are then toxic for humans. We utterly condemn research on other species and non compliant human subjects even for life threatening conditions on moral and scientific grounds, but we do understand that people want cures for diseases, we do too.

Prevention should also play a part people usually make a choice to eat too much, take illicit drugs, drink alcohol, smoke, use the car rather than walk dangle off of cliffs. Sympathies to all who become ill as a direct or indirect result of lifestyle and addictions, all deserve the best medical and nursing care but to suggest that animals should suffer for our indiscretions is despicable. There is a cure for being too fat it is called “exercise more, eat less” and it works for most people. There is a cure for alcoholism it is called “abstinence”. There is a cure for ACHD it is called “not pumping the little sods full of artificial additives and allowing them to exercise properly” which also works in many cases. There is a cure for not enough land to feed the masses, rivers being polluted with farm animal faeces, antibiotics in the human food chain contributing to “superbugs”, 18% of global warming, BSE, the vast majority of food poisoning and many other social, political, environmental and individual ailments, it is called “veganism”. Need we go on?

What is really galling is the way in which the vivisectors and their sympathisers and the general media rarely debate the use of innocent creatures in the UK to test frivolous products. Now if a group of yobs took a pregnant dog into a busy high street and starting forcing weedkiller down her throat what do you think would happen? Yes people would walk past, others might call the police, others would definitely intervene, they might even use violence after all various forums are full of non animal rights people promising to hurt those who have been found guilty of cruelty to animals . What if those who called the police were told “it’s legal, write to your MP, get the law changed”? Should they walk on, go home, write and wait for a reply? What if those who intervened and tried to rescue that poor dog were arrested and imprisoned? This is what has happened to the 2 groups of SHAC 7 both in the UK and USA, they tried to intervene and stop a catalogue of atrocities 500 of them committed every single day. The only differences between the gang in the street and HLS workers is closed doors, razorwire and a very thin veneer of respectability please log on to and look at the papers which have come out of HLS. Vivisectors argue that they only abuse animals if it is absolutely necessary judge for yourself whether testing an artificial sweetener on a monkey, or nicotine on mice, or musk ( a scent for cleaners) on rats, or caramel food colouring on mice is “absolutely necessary” for anything else than utter greed. What HLS do is no better than the horror stories we all hear about when animals are tortured by disturbed or sadistic individuals, only problem is that no RSPCA inspector would ever be able to gain access to HLS without a prior appointment.

Some will argue that they really don’t care, maybe they will only care when for example a food colouring tested on animals is released onto the market and declared as “safe” is actually a carcinogen and directly threatens their miserable life. Indeed some vile creatures (Oxford Gossip….again) have pledged to only use shampoo recently tested on animals notably Proctor and Gambles Herbal Essences. Well we will have no sympathy for them when all their hair drops off and their skin erupts into toxic boils that’s for certain! The phrase “laugh like a drain” might be a more accurate description of our response, but deep down we would still feel sorry for them… really. Of course they won’t be able to sue Proctor and Gamble if this does happen because the company has “proven” the safety of the product by forcing it on those weaker than themselves.

A request to all vivisectors and the media; can we please stop the pretence that HLS is some sort of benevolent institution only concerned with saving lives and start to debate the ethics of forcing an artificial sweetener down a monkey’s throat?


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.