Gloucestershire police riot

They have cried poverty all season, said that they cannot deal with hunts illegally hunting, threatening, hitting, riding at, driving at and beating the living snot out of anyone who is trying to monitor or sab hunts. Gloucestershire police have no resources EXCEPT for when the hunt want them to crush dissent. On Saturday out came at least 12 vehicles packed with cops, tazers, a helicoptor, all followed by a press release. 6 sabs were arrested for highly suspect reasons such as allegedly carrying “offensive weapons” i.e whips (sticks with rope attached to stop hounds hunting by cracking them) and citronella (essential oil diluted in water) to mask the fox’s scent.
Anyone could be forgiven for thinking that Gloucestershire police are nothing more than hunt lackeys.
2 of us visited the Cotswold Vale Farmers, the pack at the centre of all this police bias, yesturday and we had 8 police officers with us and we were grateful they were there as the day ended;they helped save hounds lives as the huntsman and his whipper in left 5 hounds to fend for themselves on a busy road the Forest of Dean, B4234, English Bicknor, Little Collins Grove. We used whips to help save the hounds from fast traffic by using them as leads so much for them being offensive weapons. One hound was treated for a deep laceration which should have been noticed by someone in the hunt, 2 hounds had gone off somewhere else we managed to catch only 3. Now we know that the police have vast resources at their beck and call we will expect them to actually enforce the Hunting Act next season. If they or we had not been there yesturday a hound could have been hurt/killed, or people hurt/killed in an RTC. It is clear that the Cotswold Vale are unable to control their pack so sabs on Saturday were performing a public service for which they should be applauded and not comdemned as they have been by the police and most disgracefully by a certain established anti hunt lobby group.
Tim Bonner now of the MFHA (Maters of Foxhounds Association) sprouted some nonsense about the Cotswold Vale being picked on because they are a “small rural pack” well no Tim they were sabbed because first of all they are illegally hunting (this lot have blocked badger setts before now near Tewkesbury something the police refused to investigate), secondly a few weeks ago they instigated an unprovoked, vicious assault on sabs 2 of whom were badly injured, the police have yet to arrest the clearly identified perpetrators of the assaults.
To intimate that sabs are “anti social” and violent in a police press release is utterly outrageous and should be condemned by every fairminded person.

303 gsi gateway and police disruption

At last! Schnews has written a brilliant article on how NETCU et al have been trolling on the internet. This has been going on for years and is most notable on certain anti animal rights websites which target and smear activists as well as Indymedia. The police have put up posts and comments which:
are disruptive
pretend to be from named activists in an attempt to discredit
are fictional
threatening (we have highlighted at least one of these on a previous post)
give out names, addresses, private emails and phone numbers of activists
are vindictive and hateful
The fact that the individual police officers concerned are paid to disrupt campaigning in this way is an absolute disgrace. The sheer vitriol that comes out of many of these snide attempts to demoralise is proof that the political police units are not there to “protect” anything other than corporate profits and their own very lucrative little positions. They hate activists but at the same time depend on us for their swanky vehicles and luxury accomodation (according to Mark Kennedy in the Mail on Sunday this weekend). They do their best to exaggerate the danger and rake in the cash from the taxpayer whilst facing no real risks.
Must be nice having to do nothing more than make up crap for Indymedia, blogs and of course facebook we presume AND get an enhanced salary.
Right now as the Earth burns and billions of animals die in agony all the police in NDET, NPIOU, FIT, NETCU, Rumble, Achilles and other anti activist operations want to do is keep the torture, the murder, the violation, the sacrilege going and they are prepared to wreck the lives of anyone who stands up against their freinds in the multinationals, the hunts and the labs. They are nothing more than the lackeys of those who rip animals apart, who destroy the forests and who make a profit over crucifying any man woman or child who interferes with making hard cash. This is nothing to do with the law every single officer and civilian worker involved with these police units could have chosen to have done something else, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE LOWLIFE is the enemy of every decent person and has decided to do what they can to induce a police state. Recognise them as the enemy and above all FIGHT BACK. More to follow….much more..

Media feeding frenzy over “UCs”

We have not commented thus far because anything we have to say has already been covered on Indymedia and Fitwatch, we have no comment other than sending the utmost love and respect to those caught up in this and who first outed PC Kennedy.
However as George Monbiot has commented in the Guardian today that the animal rights movement has planned “plenty of violence” this cannot go unchallenged. To our knowledge actual violence from animal rights activists is limited to the Brian Cass incident in January 2001 and perhaps another couple of unclear and isolated examples. We are uncertain of all the facts and decline to comment because of this. However to state that the animal rights movement is “violent” is utter nonsense. The normal fare of the animal rights activist are peaceful if vocal demonstrations, leafleting etc until recently lock ons, occupations, liberations etc all done without violence were dealt with as minor offences, now they are “conspiracy to blackmail” but does that make such actions violent? Why is it considered perfectly acceptable to occupy a power station (and we at NW fully support such actions) but “violent” and imprisonable under 145/146 SOCPA for 5 years to do the same action at a laboratory?
George Monbiot swallows hook, line and sinker the State’s line that it is acceptable that the animal rights movement should be spied on and oppressed but not any other movement. Maybe, just maybe if there had been a bit more analysis and questioning of the draconian and extreme policing of the AR movement, other movements would not be facing the exact same threat. Is this civil liberties for all George or are we going to have a special clause (as in SOCPA) that everyone has the right to protest unless they care about the liberation of sentient beings and the cessation of violence against them?
Furthermore why no condemnation of violence against animal rights activists? We are punched, kicked, threatened with monotonous regularity. In some cases activists have been lucky to escape with their lives after being hospitalised, four people have been killed. Why is that OK George? Are we somehow of less worth when we are protesting against a lab’ than when we are protesting against climate change?

Police support the vile fur trade

Met’ show that they are pro abuse…..again. Anatomy of a court case.

Four activists were in court for 3 days in October 2010 for an action against a company selling fur. They were found guilty of Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.

Background information.
The protest took place on 5th November 2009 at the Kensington Olympia Exhibition Centre at The Spirit of Christmas Fayre. The London Fur Company had a stall at the fair, they make all their money out of fur and have no retail outlet-they sell most of their products at events such as this one. Five activists made their way to the fayre and up to the London Fur Company stall (which trades as Wild Divine). Two of them glued their hands together around a shelving unit (but had a debonder for quick release whilst another chained herself to a clothing rail. A fourth activist then attached herself to this person. The fifth was there simply as a legal observer and was standing back, filming what was happening. The protest consisted of holding posters and attempting to hand out leaflets, informing passers-by about the fur trade in general and chanting.

The whole protest lasted around 15 minutes before the activists were manhandled out of the building. Police arrived and (an hour and a half later) the police received a phone call from New Scotland Yard telling them to arrest the activists as , “we can’t have people like that disrupting any events like this. They were then arrested under section 4a of the Public Order Act 1986 (intentional harassment alarm or distress-intentional because they had intended to attend the event).

A year on, four of the activists were taken to court (the fifth has disappeared-the four includes the activist who was filming). They had been charged with Aggravated Trespass (trespass on land with the intention of interfering with a lawful activity) and section 5 of the Public Order Act -harassment, alarm and distress using threatening , abusive, insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour.

The trial;
One witness (staff at the London Fur Company) gave her statement to police on the day that the trial began (12th October 2010). There were three witnesses who worked for the company and one witness who was security at the fayre.

Several police witnesses were called despite only being there during the arrest and not the incident. The defendants themselves submitted footage of what had happened (the prosecution had no footage themselves) as they believed it showed their innocence. A guest appearance was made by DC Ken Norman from New Scotland Yard who was in charge of the case, despite not being involved in the arrest-he likes “personally taking on cases” of animal rights people and had “personally taken on a case” of one of the defendants . After two days the judge dropped the Aggravated Trespass charge. The defendants gave evidence about the alleged section 5 offence. At the end of the third day the judge decided that they were guilty of the offence.

Note; section 5 is the least serious offence in the Public Order Act. Most people get small fines or absolute/conditional discharges for this (if it’s their first offence).

Only one of the four defendants has previous convictions (AR related but not anti-fur related) and the others had no convictions. The judge decided it appropriate to make them pay £500 court costs each and £300 fines (£400 for the person with previous convictions) plus the usual £15 victim surcharge (for victims of crime). This is £815 each, £915 for the person with previous. A little harsh??

On top of this all four defendants received a two year (the judge initially wanted it to be three years) Restraining Order (the new ASBO??) prohibiting the defendants from:

a) “entering any premises where fur is being sold or displayed or exhibited for sale including retail shops, wholesale premises and trade and retail fairs. Except in multiple department stores where you are prohibited from entering the fur department”.

b) “attending any event in the open air where fur is being sold or displayed nor exhibited for sale “, this is to protect London Fur Company and fur traders generally“.

If the activists do anything that’s prohibited they will be guilty of an offence punishable by imprisonment of six months or a fine up to £5000 (or both). In a Magistrates Court or by imprisonment up to five years or an unlimited fine (or both) in Crown Court.

Considering that it was the first offence for three of the activists and they were in court over one single offence (not a number of offences that mounted to harassment , for example) this is a bit extreme.

On the first two days of the trial two representatives from the British Fur Trade Association were taking notes in the public gallery (including one activists name, DOB and address) and on the third , no-one from the BFTA but between eight and ten trainee security guards from Harrods who stayed for the first hour.

NETCU’s latest

NETCU have announced on their own site today that the new NCDE is Detective Chief Superintendant Adrian Tudway of the Met’. He has been deputy to ACC Anton Setchell since January. As he is not an Assistant chief Constable he probably costs less and no doubt they are all having a bit of a sort out in the National Extremist police units.

Steve and Anton get the boot hahahaha

In todays Torygraph it is revealed that ACC Anton Setchell has been retired and Superintendent Steve Pearl has been booted out of his leadership as head of NETCU though we are sure that there are many lucrative opportunities for them in the private sector making money on information about activists. It would seem that both are a little miffed about this and are throwing a hissy fit about how the government will regret it. However the Telegraph is THE Tory rag, betchya they’ll sex up the political police units whilst unashamedly slashing the child protection units. Paedophiles don’t threaten the state, we apparently do, we will have to wait and see.


THe Daily Mail made some interesting comments about yesturdays student demonstration in London and the subsequent trashing of the Tory Party HQ.
First they say that NETCU was disbanded in October 2010. The website is still up the last post being on the 25th when the second SHAC case concluded.
Then they say that NPIOU (who have files on 1822 of us at the last count) has had it’s budget cut by 20%.
The political police who reside on the 7th floor of Scotland Yard it would seem needed a boost and how could the government possibly justify cutting police child protection teams to the bone whilst allowing the bloated budget of NETCU, NDET, NPIOU to continue? Well a nice little riot is one way, let it happen and then terrify people about the consequences of allowing Class War and “animal rights extremists” (both seemingly blamed by a senior police officer in the DM) to be at liberty.
THe DM appears to say that FIT teams and the NPIOU should be given a big budget and licence to deal with the nasty anarchists.
Even more telling is police Inspector Gadget’s blog with one cop commenting at 08.08 this morning, “I would suggest NPIOU is a bit safer in regards its budget today”. Yes it would appear so, no doubt Nick Herbert’s speech later today will shed some light, I just hope that he remembers that when he was a student in Cambridge that his youthful high jinks did not count against him.
Regardless some people need to take security measures, no doubt the tablois will be posting up pictures of those wanted for arrest.