Canadian Activist Corners Security “Expert”

Little gem of an article with excellent footage of some UK security expert telling a Canadian activist about his “work” when he was overheard discussing stuff in a cafe In Canada
http://www.anarchistnews.org
Some of the lies he tells are;
that SHAC are proscribed under the Terrorism Act, he does not say which one.
that SHAC dug up a grandmother
that Smash EDO attacked 2 children aged 3 and 6
that there are May Day riots every year in London.

It would appear that this person is one of those who have seen a nice little market niche in scaring the living snot out of various companies and then offering “security” breifings and intelligence on individuals and groups. Tellingly he says he will “provide information to whoever wants it”. It just seems like a threat, he is very open about what he is doing and seems to enjoy being filmed and questioned knowing that this would appear on the internet. This would imply that there is a good reason for him acting as he did.
What is certain is that these little breifings and even conferences are happening all over the place and people are making a profit off our backs and possibly sharing data with multinationals. They should be taken into consideration (but not too much) and challenged.
We know that Agenda run very expensive courses for the employees of vivisection establishments concerning dealing with protestors so muse as to whether or not this plonker is connected to them. We also think that the information he supplies is not free or out of the goodness of his heart. He is making money out of activists!

The Daily Fail (or is it Heil?) slanders prisoners

We have read some absolute crap over the years but Andrew Malone’s “investigation” into “A terrorist called Mumsy” has to win some sort of prize!
Andrew regurgitating a NETCU press release is not an investigation dearie and for those who read this give Andrew and DCI Andy Robbins any credibility consider the following facts;
Sarah has been in prison for years now but according to Andrew she has only been in for a week!
How exactly can a prisoner be forced to wear leather shoes? First Andrew says Sarah is forced to wear leather, then he says she is living a vegan life of Riley. Did you make this up in the pub Andrew or what?
Sarah had nothing to do with digging up Gladys Hammond.
If SHAC were a “ruthless IRA-style gang” where are all the bodies and limping people who have been knee-capped, those who have been tarred and feathered? (we at NW fully acknowledge that atrocities were committed by the UVF and British soldiers and police as well during the Troubles). Stop exaggerating Andrew, we know it makes a better headline but really show some respect to those who have suffered both in Ireland and on the UK mainland especially as we approach Rememberance Sunday.
What extensive training at “safe houses” on how to avoid police surveillance?
And it goes on and on and on 2 entire pages worth.
Solidarity with Sarah and the other activists who have been painted as her mere stooges.

Some Comments on the SHAC sentencing

NETCU try and fail to crush us.

So another 6 SHAC activists are hauled over the coals and 5 of them are sent to prison. Did this stop SHAC? Hardly, over the sentencing which took 3 days demonstrations took place simultaneously in London and at the gates of the 2 HLS sites as well as their beagle suppliers at Harlan Huntingdon and their rabbit breeders at Highgate Lincolnshire. There was even a brief foray into Cambridgeshire Police HQ looking for NETCU’s office on the day of sentencing. HLS and their backers have been left in no doubt that there are many who will continue to fight their violence and terror despite the fact that they have the full backing of the state.

So let us examine the crap that has been sprouted all over the media about both HLS and SHAC

1. Huntingdon Life Sciences is announced in hushed tones as some sort of saviour of humankind. A medical research facility no less who save babies and cure the blind, the sick and the lame. The messianic fervour with which this pile of thugs and crooks is lauded is somewhat vomit inducing so we have had another look at their website and fair play to them they tell us what they get up to behind the wire and it is not nice and no it is not “necessary” they don’t go as far as Safepharm and show us footage but hey ho.
HLS list their activities as follows:
Pharmaceuticals
Crop protection
Food Services
Biopharmaceutical
Chemicals Industry
Vetinary
Now there are many arguments about the validity of testing medicines on animals elsewhere, we will not get into that suffice to say that a dog is not a human and it is somewhat haphazard to extrapolate information from testing something on an entirely different species as well as it being fundamentally wrong from an animal rights perspective so we intend to look at the other decidedly non medical aspects of HLS.

The Chemicals industry is justified by HLS saying that “There are very few areas in our daily lives where we do not come into contact with one chemical or another. From our day-to-day diets, to the fuel in our cars, to medicinal products”. And so animals must suffer and die. For those of you who believe that animal rights activists should forgo all medical treatment why not take this further? HLS are of course right it is impossible to live a life free of synthetic chemicals so should we all disappear to a cave somewhere or fight for a world in which we are not ingesting, inhaling, eating and absorbing through our skin compounds which may cause us harm? Drive or take a lift in a car or a bus and you too are a hypocrite if we follow this to it’s logical conclusion. Fridge coolants are tested on animals, ditto paints, artificial scents, plastics ad infinitum. It would be a good thing if it was all labelled as animal tested. But really is this medical, life saving research getting a new air freshener on the market, is it really?

Vetinary is hardly better. HLS are not in this out of caring for much loved pets their main concern is keeping intensive farming going linking in with the meat industry in a web of abuse.
“only healthy animals produce safe and wholesome food”
“ To obtain the same food production level as today without vetinary medicines experts say it would require an increase by 25% of the poultry population and an increase of 89%of the cattle population”. In other words pump poultry and cattle full of antibiotics, cram them into tiny spaces, let them live in their own shit and go crazy as long as people can eat as many corpses as they want that is what counts. Meat, dairy and eggs are luxury items but we suppose that as the Western diet induces diseases such as hypertension, diabetes, obesity, cancer that it all helps HLS’s profits to promote it. By the way Cargill are an HLS customer, they supply Mc Donalds with all of its chicken in the UK, they can cut off the hock burns from these poor creatures and coat them in breadcrumbs. A slaughterhouse in Hereford is an absolute hell on earth which kills thousands daily and abuses its workforce. Cargill also have scant regard for human rights and have a mission to destroy the Amazonian rainforest and enforce GM foods on us. What nice playmates for HLS are Cargill and Mc Donalds their very names synonymous with corporate greed, environmental desecration and the suppression of dissenting views.

HLS have “induced disease models” I.e. they make healthy individuals very sick, treat them, murder them and cut them up.
They induce mastitis in dairy cows with staph aureus and E.coli (endotoxin) for acute mastitis just so people can drink milk (and pus). 70% of humans cannot actually digest dairy past infancy so it is not necessary at all to inflict suffering in this way for a luxury product.

HLS also have “Respiratory and digestive models in swine”. Now why might that be “necessary”? No-one needs to eat the corpses of pigs, furthermore if pigs were not treated like pieces of machinery in factory farms left in their own crap and breathing methane all day they would not have breathing problems. HLS go so low as to infect piglets with E.coli at weaning which suggests that the bacterium is an issue in factory farming and a threat to an unsuspecting public. Do bear in mind that pig and poultry urine and faeces along with antibiotic residues finds its way into drinking water. “Superbugs” are partly the responsibility of the factory farms and companies like HLS who encourage the practice of treating living, sentient beings as though they were machines.

Whilst HLS accuse animal rights activists of terror campaigns they have allied themselves with notorious human rights abusers. No-one has ever cut off the arms and legs of children as Shell did in the Niger Delta, no-one has killed and maimed thousands in a chemical explosion as did Union Carbide in Bhopal. Nor have any vegans been complicit in the Holocaust like Bayer and Roche. When we see those who have actually killed and tortured humans for just a little more profit in the dock of an international court and facing prison maybe then we will breathe a sigh of relief that the tide is turning but this is fantasy land. At present these people are “law abiding”, “businessmen” , “victims of extremism” we need to expose them for what they are whilst being approachable and kind to those who are unwittingly embroiled in the horror of corporate atrocities or who wish to change aiming to win hearts and minds wherever possible. Many within HLS and allied companies have indeed helped the animals within by passing on information or leaving them long may it continue. To those within any laboratory, the police or any corporation which abuses others who have doubts or dislike what is going on you can speak out, you can leave, you can report illegal practices, think and then act in whatever way you can.

2. A quick media round up has led to the following somewhat annoying and generalised slack journalism and cliches on comments boards and in the main articles/televised bits.

The Daily Mail reprinted a NETCU press release in effect. DCI Andy Robbins clearly enjoying his 15 minutes of fame is quoted as saying that “they” posted hoax bombs and of course Prosecutor Alistair Nisbet was wheeled out of the closet again to chunter on about extremism, he who personally wrote to many of us in a failed attempt to force us to reveal pgp keys we did not even have, (some of the victims of his threats of sending us to prison were elderly and did not even own a computer or know how to use one). None of us are in a position to know whether or not any of the defendants let alone all of them posted hoax bombs but of course as this is a conspiracy trial the Crown did not have to prove anything not even to the balance of probability standard required in the civil courts. The Crown had to prove that the defendants knew one another and were part of a campaign against HLS and that some illegal activity had occurred. This could apply to many different campaigns and not knowing those carrying out illegal acts or approving, let alone having any influence over them would appear to be no defence. The defendants were not prosecuted on their own actions alone, that much is crystal clear and it is an abomination.

Readers and viewers comments were a mix of supportive for the defendants and the following mad stuff;

One idiot says that they should pay for their own prosecution and imprisonment. Well if so should this not apply to all “criminals”? Why specify animal rights activists.

There is the mind numbingly boring argument about how the defendants should be denied all health care. Well as anti vivisectionists we want experimentation on sentients to stop we do not want the entire NHS to collapse. We live in a world in which it is normal to oppress and kill the weaker members of society. We enjoy eating spring onions but we abhor the forced child labour uncovered in the Malverns this week. If we were to protest against child labour would we be hypocritical if we ate spring onions? We are opposed to man made green house gases but just by living we are part of the problem. We are opposed to the war in Iraq but pay taxes that make it possible. We are disgusted by the way in which all the oil companies behave (all of whom are HLS customers by the way) but it is impossible to completely extricate oneself from a society totally (and dangerously) dependant on oil. To campaign for change does not mean that we extricate ourselves from every single thing tested on animals for that would be very impractical. We want change for the future which does not mean starting from some animal rights year zero in medical terms. Many drugs that have been tested on animals and then used by humans are valuable and life saving we do not wish to deny them to anyone but we do question the methodology on scientific grounds, ponder the treatments thrown down the pan because they killed rats but might have helped people and are outraged at the scant regard for life that is endemic in our society. We are animal rights activists and we do not believe that a human is any more important than a mouse for example. We have through our labour, forced taxation and through VAT paid for the NHS, many of us have given years of service to that great institution, so no-one has the right to dictate to us that we alone in the entire population should be refused treatment.

Of course we then go on to “if one of your family had cancer blah, blah , blah”. Well here’s the way it is. Surprising as it may be animal rights activists do not live in some bubble which protects us from illness and disease. We have loved ones who get ill and die, we ourselves get ill and die. We have recently lost a lovely lady who fought hard for animals to bladder cancer. Getting cancer, being mashed to a pulp by police/hunters/circus freaks/ vivisectors, having sick loved ones does not change our views on vivisection. For ourselves we navigate out treatment, refusing some of it and accepting what we individually deem acceptable and for some it does mean refusing all treatment. For our loved ones that is their decision not ours unless they are very young or unable to decide in which case we have to decide with health professionals what is for the best just like anyone else. We cannot in law deny medical treatment for our dependants even if we wanted to.

Some have said that the defendants should have got 25 years. Right so being vaguely aware that someone might have painted a car, sending an email, campaigning against animal abuse warrants more punishment than mass murder? Of course at the same time someone can take a beloved family member, torture them, kill them and not receive more than six months in prison. The laws that supposedly exist to protect non-humans are hardly fearsome. In comparison really ask yourselves who is more scary a group of vegans wielding a spray can or a gang of dog fighters or badger baiters? The state has deemed that dog fighting and rolling is a minor matter despite the fact that humans are terrorised as well, so minor in fact that a charity the RSPCA is delegated to deal with the prosecution and good people pay for it twice through taxation and then through making donations they can ill afford after heart rending appeals. The priorities here are very mixed up huge rich multinationals get the platinum service from the state in protecting their interests, ordinary folk are bled dry to pay for a vague attempt at justice. No disrespect to the RSPCA who have done some good work but why are a charity prosecuting offences?

This leads onto the general idea that we live in a democratic society and therefore protest peacefully, get laws changed if you want to help those being abused an oft quoted sentiment and one endorsed by NETCU in their press release. We are all brought up with this notion that we live in a democracy and that petitions and parliament work so ordinary folk may be excused for this perhaps. If would be churlish to say that no improvements have ever been made through legislation. People are no longer hung at Tyburn in front of a howling mob, children are no longer forced up chimneys, women are no longer the property of their male relatives. HOWEVER it is extremely naïve and indeed simplistic to state that there is some sort of formula to protesting in a way that will not invite prosecution. We have attended demonstrations where police have attended and been happy with what we were doing, everyone felt safely in the realms of legality, no-one was upset but those demonstrations have actually been used as evidence against activists using the charges of SOCPA, Harassment and Blackmail. If the police present at the scene of the actual crimes do not think crimes are being committed what hope do activists have in determining what is legal and what is not? Have an effective campaign against powerful interests and you will face scrutiny, they will try and prosecute you, they will try and stop you and if you are not intimidated they will try and imprison you or hurt you. This is how it works nothing to do with legality, fairness or justice. The National Public Order Intelligence Unit on the 7th floor of Scotland Yard has files on 1822 activists who they deem to be “domestic extremists” at the last count and this includes many individuals with no criminal record who have led blameless lives. It is a blacklist of people who the political police under the leadership of Assistant Chief Constable Anton Setchell deem as warranting state intrusion and files contain misinformation, inaccuracies, rumour, opinions of individual officers and judgements about individuals. This is the way things are so let us stop pretending that the police are all nice fluffy and fair. They are not, they are the agents of the state, they are politicised and some of them positively enjoy being the lackeys of the corporations. We do need to regard the police and the courts as our enemies and be very wary even if very occasionally they may work in our interests. Very very few police officers will maintain an honest and fair approach if it means going up against their colleagues, respect to those who do but it is far safer to maintain as a general rule that the canteen culture will ALWAYS win.
Therefore animal rights activists standing outside a circus handing out leaflets are “violent”, the circus freak wielding a screwdriver and threatening to stab them is not violent. They have actually managed to get the public to believe this shit by ignoring complaints from animal rights activists concerning violence, death threats, arson, dead animals dumped at people’s homes etc and hyping up every demonstration as some sort of riot. Individual police officers may try and take complaints seriously but they will be thwarted by the CPS at some stage. Of course sometimes animal abusers and police officers do get prosecuted and have complaints against them upheld, the police DO pay out for assault and unlawful arrest so it is not all bad but our argument is that there is a definite inproportionate bias against those who fight animal abuse.
If the Hunting Act and violent crimes associated with hunting were enforced with the same vigour many hunters would be facing years in prison. Changing the law is not the answer, hunting is supposed to be banned which we all know is a joke. There are laws which govern the treatment of animals in abattoirs, farms and laboratories which remain for the most part unenforced. Those who try and gather evidence of these crimes themselves face prosecution, hunt monitors have been arrested, it is a criminal offence for us when undercover to film experiments no matter how illegal or disgusting. When these offences are prosecuted the penalties are hardly worth the effort. We need change through the grassroots not through legislation, for each one of us to take responsibility for our actions. If HLS and abattoirs had glass walls not they would be smashed by an outraged public.

Violence kept getting mentioned on the news. As far as we know this was a conspiracy case and actions which were not known about by the defendants were pinned on them. They were made scapegoats for every little thing done in the fight against HLS which is totally unacceptable. Now if one of us blows up a lab’, or indeed does send needles off in the post it would be understandable if the police wished to follow up a case against us. But here we have a case wherein some people were involved in SHAC and persons unknown did some illegal stuff. Of course the state has not had to produce any evidence that each defendant did this or that apart from maybe being loud at demos and involved with SHAC thus is the nature of conspiracy charges. As far as we can assess no-one was physically harmed by any of the defendants who now face longer in prison than a rapist. Let us get away from this condemnation of violence. Vivisection is violent it kills non human animals directly and human ones indirectly. The police are violent and many activists involved in peaceful demonstrations against vivisection have been very badly hurt by both police and security guards with quite a few broken limbs and smashed heads. Prison is violent. Violence is used routinely and systematically by HLS, HLS’s corporate mates and the state why should they have a monopoly? Actually they do because we are not violent by nature and is property damage violent or not? The charge of violence is a hypocrisy . However we should think about our actions and reflect on them. Secondary or tertiary targets (of a separate nature to direct abuse e.g DHL) mean staff who do not know who HLS is and more to the point may be sympathetic, shouting at them whilst wearing a hoodie may not be the best way of winning the day. Engaging people in conversation is far more worrying to the authorities and rightly so.

The BBC website had an interesting tale of woe from a supplier whose “life was under siege……The 3 men and 3 Women responsible for turning his life and the life of his family upside down have now been sentenced”. He was targeted for 7 years so let us look at the ages of Alfie 21 and Nicole 22, the arrests took place in 2007 which takes us back to 2000/2001 when Alfie was 11 and Nicole 12. Are the BBC seriously suggesting that 2 school children collected sanitary towels and needles to send to this man? It is far more likely that they were at school and blissfully unaware of either SHAC or HLS. We are neither condemning or condoning what this happened here because we do not know the whole story but is it really the case that all 6 defendants were soley responsible for what happened to him? We suspect not and that this is an appalling misrepresentation of the facts. Of course none of us have any way of knowing if what he said is true or not. Prosecutor Alistair Nisbet added “These defendants were not legitimate animal welfare campaigners”. No Alistair they were not, animal rights is an entirely different matter to animal welfare.

Some comments put the focus on testing products on prisoners. This sort of simplistic and facist statement implies that all prisoners are scum who deserve to be tortured and killed. So some young lad who carries a knife to defend himself from the local gang, he deserves to be tortured does he? What about Ruth Wyner the director of a homeless shelter in Cambridge who the police fitted up and was sent to prison for “allowing” drug dealing, so she deserves to be dissected eh? What about the “illegal” immigrant who is escaping torture and death at home why not poison them as well and make notes as they choke on their own vomit and blood? Maybe the drug mule who desperate for money to send her mother to hospital makes a decision that lands her in prison for longer than a child rapist why not use her for batch testing botox? Thousands of people who are in prison are there because they are poor, frightened, victims, sick or for other political reasons, millions who will never even be arrested commit the most horrendous crimes. To state that it is OK to torture and kill them as an alternative to animals at HLS is quite frankly a disgrace and akin to wanting the Nazi death camps to reopen and before someone says they will only use the really bad people like child abusers well we are glad that you have such a touching faith in our criminal justice system, we do not and where exactly do you start to draw the line as to who is a “good” person and who should be exterminated? Many innocent people do go to prison, many guilty people do not this is a fact of life. Interestingly those who are opposed to all the “violence” have no problem with publicly stating that SHAC defendants should be experimented on maybe in jest but many a true word as the saying goes.

3. NETCU issued an announcement on their website on the same day as the sentencing which said:

“In 2004 a major police investigation was launched into the criminal activities linked to SHAC……Specialist support was also provided by the Serious Organised Crime Agency and the City of London Police’s Economic Crime Unit”. This covered several different forces.

We need to learn from these cases not just in the animal rights movement but across all movements. Effectively the police have successfully charged people with crimes committed by others, without the conspiracy charge it is highly unlikely that the defendants would have faced anything near as serious.

We are supposed to be reassured by “the police service remains committed to facilitating the peaceful protest of the majority”, what like they did at the G20 and Kingsnorth? Do note that at nearly every protest the police have a little copy of the NETCU handbook designed to hinder and disrupt peaceful, legal demonstrations, that the FIT teams are still lurking albeit in a less threatening way. The police have decided that protest is at best an inconvenience at worst terrorism. We need to be aware of the law as it stands and how it is misinterpreted by the police, we need to regroup, rethink, learn from experience, evolve and carry on . We also need to make it clear to those who oppose our stance against human supremacy that if we can be isolated and persecuted in this way that this will inevitably apply to other groups first the environmentalists, antifacists, anarchists and anti arms trade activists with whom we share many goals and where there is much cross over then the far right (as is happening) and maybe one day groups such as the Countryside Alliance.

Please note well that this “major police investigation” did not cease after the 2007 raids. Police infiltrator PC Mark Stone attended animal rights events as recently as September 2010 and maybe up until he was uncovered by other activists last week. It is suspected that the police are still actively trying to collect more scalps all activists should be legally aware and security conscious regardless of how legal and fluffy demos and actions may be. Do not panic but be careful, be prepared, but above all be active.

Mark Stone/ Police officer

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2010/10/466705.html Please look up this link. Mark Stone has admitted to being a police officer. Netcu Watch fully supports those who found out about this betrayal and acted with the utmost integrity, courage and intelligence in investigating and bringing to light the fact that he was paid to infiltrate several activist communities. Love and respect to all those affected.

Demonstration at Cambridgeshire HQ tommorrow 12.00-13.30 where NETCU were origionally spawned followed by a demonstration at Harlan near Huntingdon where beagles are bred for experiments 14.00 to show our disgust at the state for this and to show soldarity with those SHAC prisoners being sentenced at that time. Keep calm and carry on.

Operation Rumble’s pro-hunting stance

Section 69 Criminal Justice Act 1994. How the police and in particular NETCU and Operation Rumble are actively facilitating unlawful hunting.

We are told from a young age that we live in a democracy, that if we lobby our MP, write letters and protest in a nice state approved way that we will get the law changed, that improvements will be made. So after over a century of campaigning against hunting and ripping apart wild mammals for no other reason than “sport” where are we? What have we accomplished? How is this hard fought law being implemented? Most importantly is this assumption that getting the law changed is all important no more than a fairy story, a sop to the British public? Believe you me in the real world NOTHING has changed.

Despite the Hunting Act 2005 making it unlawful the hunting of wild mammals with hounds and terriers remains commonplace in the UK. The “sport” involves hunting deer, fox, mink and hare by scent until the scent is lost, the victim is torn apart by the hounds, brought to bay and shot (in the case of stags, hinds and calves), is hunted to ground or escapes. In the case of fox and mink escaping to ground can mean one or two terriers are put in to evict the hunted creature or kill them underground a slow, terrifying protracted death. Hunted animals may escape only to die from exhaustion later maybe far away from their own territory with no food, no shelter .

I am ex-hunt and after great deliberation stopped being a hunt supporter in 1990 and eventually became thoroughly anti hunt and vegan in 1994 telling all of my old hunting friends by letter that I could no longer be part of such gross cruelty as well as my intention to use my knowledge to end hunting. This was not an easy decision to make I did not want to betray those who had been good friends to me but betraying the hunted by doing nothing was far worse. One horrific example of cruelty happened at the West Kent hunt who met at the Greyhound at Charcott on 14th March 1988 . I was at a dig out and a hugely pregnant vixen was extracted from an earth and shot in the head, as is sometimes the case the bullet did not kill her but she was obviously badly injured. They could have shot her again as indeed others would have done but instead they threw her to terriers standing by to maul her and attack her. She tried to fight back but eventually collapsed, it looked as though she was dead. We went back to the land rover I was in the back and to my horror heard her sob. I told the terrier men thinking that they would see fit to end her suffering but they simply laughed saying that I could just hear the cubs moving and she would be dead soon enough anyway. I ran it by senior hunt officials who were sickened but without evidence would do nothing. This is exactly what the police are keen to support, encourage, endorse and protect from any interference or exposure despite the fact that Parliament has outlawed it.

On another occasion I was out with the Devon and Somerset stag hounds when the hunted stag came past frothing at the mouth, tongue hanging out, eyes rolling, his terror palpable this was in the early 90s, I felt physically sick at the very brink of the end of my life as a hunt supporter whilst others jeered and laughed. One day my friend Jesse as we were mucking out the horses (she rode with the D and S a lot) told me about a little hind who was shot in a book and was flailing around suffering unimaginably running wounded down the stream. Jesse shook her head and was obviously upset and keen to get across her opinion that deer hunting was barbaric, it was not sport . Jesse met a horrific end unrelated to hunting and can no longer testify as to what happens. I still can as can others who once hunted and those who are at present quiet about what they have seen and done.

Hunting to me became an abomination and slowly it became clear that there was no such thing as a one off. I joined the campaign against hunting spurred on by the fact that the Criminal Justice Act was looming which effectively made interfering with hunting illegal. I joined the Hunt Saboteurs Association in a press conference in the House of Commons 1994 condemning the then Criminal Justice Bill and became a hunt saboteur and monitor. It is rather ironic that the final push for me to oppose hunting came with the CJA being implemented and that I should actually be prosecuted under it myself at a time when one of my old hunting friends Nick Herbert MP is Minister of State for Policing and Criminal Justice and the leader of the repeal the Hunting Act brigade within the Commons . In fact the last conversation I had with him was in the early 90s when I asked him to stop setting thuggish stewards on sabs and monitors which was one of his initiatives. I got nowhere.

_____________The so-called offence__________
I went out either as a sab’ or monitor occasionally in the interceding years until 21stMarch 2009 when I joined with others at the Vale of Aylesbury, Garth and South Berks hunt (now renamed the Kimblewick) who met at Brockhurst School Marlston Rd, Marlston, Hermitage, Buckinghamshire. Why exactly a school is collaborating with a criminal activity I know not but maybe the hunt lied, maybe Mr Fleming one of the masters and a head teacher works there. The hounds went to an area known as the ratpit opposite the school and started speaking (a sort of howling noise which lets other hounds and humans know that they have smelt a fox).

We had walked beside the footpath which was blocked by the field ( the mounted followers) and one sab’ blew a hunting horn to call the hounds away from the hunted animal, others holloaed (a noise which calls hounds to you). I was standing there debating with one of the Masters, Mr Fleming, about whether or not he was the landowner and was filming this interaction when the sab’ with the hunting horn was nearly crushed by another Master Mr Austin who tried to run him down, the sab’ swore at him as he moved away just in time. The hounds went on in full cry through a barbed wire fence and sabs followed on quickly except 2 of us who are much slower. As I reached the fence Sergeant Paul Riley called for me to stop by name and knowing him to be a highly biased member of the Operation Rumble team and having been seriously injured by a police officer before, I made a run for it. I was caught and told to leave the land under section 69 of the Criminal Justice Act 1994. Knowing that the hunt were hunting unlawfully I asked him what legal activity I was supposed to be interfering with whilst sitting down in order to make it as difficult as possible for him, I also complained about the illegal hunting and asked him to do something about it. I was then arrested. The other sabs went on unhindered and a monitor caught the hounds on film hunting a deer through woodland with Mr Austin doing absolutely nothing to stop them. Despite repeated complaints the police refused to take any action against the hunt committing a crime right in front of them.

It is common knowledge that the police response to any offence committed by a hunt supporter is anaemic at best and that the response to any slight upset to any hunt supporter is met with the utmost sycophancy towards the hunt. As a result the police are regarded with the utmost contempt, they are nothing more than glorified hunt thugs. Forget about them just being too incompetent to police hunting, they are actively facilitating this criminal activity and doing so with the utmost enthusiasm. Those who try to gather evidence of illegal hunting against all odds are showing the police up, the police, it would appear institutionally, are actively pro hunt and therefore pro crime. There are some individuals who try to be fair but their attempts are thwarted by senior officers and the CPS. Complaints by anti hunt activists concerning hunts have even been used as evidence of “animal rights extremism” in some cases. I reported a badger sett being wrecked by a local hunt, the police did not even go and see it, they did ,however, make sure that an entry went on my NCDE (National Coordinator of Domestic Extremism) file held at Scotland Yard as evidence of “extremism”. Yep, if you complain about a criminal activity carried out by a hunt the police regard that as evidence of YOU being an extremist in some cases.

Eventually at a later date the CPS decided that it was in the public interest to charge me with this offence. The same CPS who are too lazy, stupid and corrupt to prosecute hunt supporters who break the law by illegal hunting, trespass, killing cats, attacking people, criminal damage, robbery etc. At every stage, at arrest, at booking in at Newbury police station, the next day in a complaint to the Independent Police Complaints Commission and on charging at Oxford I complained repeatedly about the fact that the hunt were hunting illegally. This was not enough I was told by the magistrate in court, 5 separate complaints about the hunt by me to the police was not enough for them to get the message or act!!! Therefore I would suggest a 999 call by every single person who witnesses every single illegal act committed by any hunt followed up by at least 6 more complaints to make sure that they really do understand and a formal complaint to Professional Standards about every officer who is negligent in not fully investigating the offence of hunting wild mammals with dogs. Either that or be lectured to on how you should have really made the effort rather than only reporting the crime once.

Letters between Alistair Jackson Chairman of the Masters of Foxhounds Association and Thames Valley Police that year were of the police asking why “the trail” had to be laid on and near public roads without any hint of criticism of blatant breaches of the Hunting Act with the MFHA whining about the police “allowing” unsympathetic persons to witness hunting, not difficult to witness when hounds are running down main roads in full cry after a fox.

The disclosure of evidence to my lawyers and to me became a farce leading up to the trial. A hunt monitor had recorded the hounds clearly drawing through thick undergrowth where clearly no trail had been laid and then a deer can be seen being hunted by the entire pack whilst one of the masters just follows encouraging them. She gave it to the police in good faith as evidence of unlawful hunting. The police never wanted it to see the light of day. The police vociferously warned that if I saw any hunt members face on the film that I would target them and for their safety I could not be shown the film. No reason was given for this wild allegation and for the record I have absolutely no interest in harming anyone involved in hunting unless in self defence/defending others, I am certainly not interested in harassing school kids who were out on their ponies without a clue what was going on as was implied. My lawyer would be allowed to see the film under supervision , my lawyer refused, quite rightly. We were then told it was very boring and showed nothing that would be of any interest to my case. We saw it at a pre-trial review when the CPS lawyer covering the case filling in for the usual lawyer saw no problem with us viewing it. We watched it with great interest and found to our astonishment that there were no recognisable faces on it at all. The police and CPS had lied to try and stop us viewing it because it was damning evidence undermining their assertion that the hunt was 100% legal.

So this went to trial in Magistrates court in October 2009.

This started with the rather bumbling prosecutor Mr Baldwin saying that I was there to intimidate, disrupt and obstruct the hunt followers. For the record I was not there to intimidate anyone and it would have been a pretty mean feat considering how we were outnumbered 5 to 1, I did nothing to disrupt or obstruct the hunt. As every good sab’ knows less can often be more, first do no harm. I had done nothing but walk across a field , sit down and demand that the police investigate the criminal offence taking place right in front of them. In any event obstructing/disrupting a criminal offence is in normal circumstances considered to be a good thing, there was nothing legal about this hunt! Mr Baldwin knew this and admitted it privately at the end of the trial which concluded in December 2009.

Mr Fleming MFH (now ex MFH) was first to tell his story of woe. This meet was a joint meet with the Taunton Vale Harriers and their huntsman and hounds were hunting that day. This “victim” of mine told of the horror of people in black clothing trying to save the hunted animals life by walking on his land. I had been polite to him during our conversation and there was little more to say. It had been agreed that I was on his land but so what? He told the court that terriermen Mr Vincent and Mr Nash were laying the trail that day and that Mr Austin was whipping in.

Onto Mr Christopher Austin MFH who unlike Mr Fleming was very twitchy indeed with a bright red face. He told the court that he was on a horse that did not tolerate a whip being cracked which is rather odd considering that if he was acting as a whipper in one of his roles was to stop hounds going across a main road or hunting something other than the “trail” they claimed to have laid, in fact the whip is a safety device to stop hounds from hurting themselves and/or others, sabs carry whips to stop hounds hunting live animals or endangering themselves. If he was unable to use it because his horse spooks then he would have been useless. He told the court that they always video the trail being laid but on this day very strangely the video was “not working”. .He made much of the fact that he was sworn at when he tried to seriously injure a sab’. Now in direct contradiction of Mr Fleming’s evidence he said that he was field master that day. Personally I believe Mr Fleming who was seen at the head of the field and seemed much more honest in his demeanour. Mr Austin is also seen later alone on video and admitted that it was him following hounds hunting a deer making no attempt to stop them. A field master’s role is to lead the mounted followers so where had they all gone if he was in charge of the riders? He told the court an interesting story about how sabs ran away from the police when in fact they were running to stop the hounds from killing. The huntsman in charge of the hounds that day was Alan Thomas MH (Master of Hounds, Harriers tend to hunt hares but can and do hunt foxes). Austin told us how his intention was “trying to replicate normal hunting” using a fox based scent from the USA “where it is in common use”, it would appear that this is fox urine maybe from fur farms but what is interesting is how Austin admitted rather reluctantly that he was doing his utmost to ensure that they were hunting in areas where they could pick up a fox and hunt on “accidentally” even to the extent of using a scent that would ensure that the hounds would hunt a fox. Since the trial Austin’s mysterious fox based scent has been laid over land the VAGSB had no permission to be on resulting in an angry confrontation with a farmer who had his land trashed and playing fields. Why lay a trail over land you are banned from and football pitches, is this not rather suspicious? Sadly none of this could be questioned at the appeal. Austin also said that the trail layers would have got off their quad bikes to lay the trail in undergrowth which is why we could see the hounds speaking in thick brambles. Austin claimed that he knew nothing of the deer being hunted despite the fact it happened right in front of him and Sergeant Riley claims to have informed him of this matter.

Mr Nigel Howard was a member of the field and had hunted for 12 years so my experience is thus greater at 29 years of being in the field on both sides of the fence. He told some interesting little tale about how the field we had been forced to stand on ,as the horses were all on the footpath, was seeded intimating that we were ruining the crops. My Fleming, the landowner had already told the court that the field was not seeded and therefore we had done no harm to the land. I don’t know whether Nigel had been at the sauce or is just delusional or a bare faced liar but he then told a tale of me rolling around on the earth “kicking and screaming” and being “very aggressive” to the police from several fields away. Of course if I had then I would have been charged with much more, assaulting a police officer for one. His evidence was not backed up by any other witness. I conclude that he is a nasty vindictive fat liar therefore, or that he needs help. He said that he did not see a trail laid.

Mark Vincent was one of the “trail layers” so he said. His role was to lay a trail on his quad bike. Several lines he had laid were videoed by Stephen Nash who followed in his land rover contradicting Austin who told the court that the hunt camera was broken. He did not get off the quad bike at ANY point further contradicting Austin’s evidence that when the hounds were drawing covert and picking up a scent that it was no trail that they can be seen hunting. He spoke to Sergeant Riley before the meet and said that Stephen Nash stayed with him. He handed the camera to Andrea O Reagan.

Stephen Nash, this started to get interesting. He is a fence mender, he verified that the field was not seeded. He told the court that he did not film the trails laid he used the camera only at the meet, where a trail was supposed to be laid south of the school and to film sabs. He filmed NOTHING else contradicting both Austin’s and Vincent’s evidence, he gave the camera to Vincent, he was with him for only a short time.

It may surprise people to know that this tape was not made available, it had mysteriously disappeared.

PC James Willmett 3588 who is seconded to anti animal rights unit Operation Rumble. He said that we were trying to stop the horses in direct contradiction to the hunt who were angry that we were on the field. The horses were on the footpath blocking it. In Jame’s little world hunts are sabotaged by running amongst the riders and so he came out with what he thought everyone wanted to hear. Riders do not kill foxes, therefore no-one is interested in them, the focus is on hounds, huntsman, terrier men who are the ones who will hunt and kill. The field (the mounted followers) and the foot followers are just there to watch and keep up with them. I have no idea with why he said that we “were trying to stop the horses” when we were staying away from the horse for their safety, the safety of the riders and our safety and as a result were accused of trespassing but of course his role is to ingratiate himself with those who support hunting so I suppose it was the best he could come up with. He said that Sergeant Riley asked me to leave 3 times. He said after my arrest I complained about the hunt being unlawful. He refused to act on my complaint as he was not interested in enforcing that particular law. He could not be bothered to reattend the hunt and investigate the crimes they were committing.

Sergeant Paul Riley of Operation Rumble did not even know what “speaking” was in reference to the sound hounds make when they are hunting. His extent of preparing himself and his underlings for policing the hunt was to read some briefing, but of course they were not there to enforce the Hunting Act , they were there to arrest one side only. Regrettably section 69 revolves around what the arresting officer “reasonably believes is a legal activity. In Riley’s case his sycophancy towards the hunt means that they could be ripping apart a cat in someone’s garden in front of toddlers and he would still believe it was a legal activity. Hunt supporters never lie you see. A police officer who does not to have even the most basic knowledge concerning hunting but lots of knowledge and enthusiasm when it comes to what sab’s and monitors can be arrested for is not someone who is impartial, s/he is present only to enforce the law on one side and let the other break the law with no consequences. This is sergeant Riley through and through, a corrupt pro animal abuse officer who will do anything for Oxford University and now the hunts and I mean anything.
He had not bothered to brief himself or his underlings on what was legal hunting and what was not but why should he bother? He was not there to be impartial, or to ensure that neither side overstepped the mark, he certainly was not there to enforce the Hunting Act which might after all upset the people wearing nice shiny buttons, he was there to arrest sabs and stop the collection of any evidence of illegal hunting. His extent of doing something in the face of a complaint with evidence of the deer being hunted was to tell Austin that he had been caught out. I would love this a police officer telling me that I have been caught doing something very naughty on film but doing absolutely nothing about it. Austin must have a memory problem though because he “forgot” this when he gave his evidence.

The police claimed that they had not seen a fox which is hardly surprising but they were of the belief that they had to see a fox themselves to know that the hunt was illegal. As anyone who knows anything about foxes and hunting knows a fox who is hunted does his best to disappear from view. This is obvious common sense but the police were negligent in that they could not be bothered to brief themselves on the most basic principles of hunting. Does this mean that if a hunt are taking great pains to hunt legally and a fox is seen that they are hunting illegally? Does sighting a fox in London mean that a hunt are nearby? Regrettably the District Judge was also ignorant of these matters and decided that actually seeing the fox is important whereas every hunter, every sab, every monitor, everyone who has attended just a couple of meets knows that when you hear the hounds speak then that is when you know that something or someone is being hunted. The first sense of knowing what is happening with a hunt is always sound especially as it is impossible to see through thick woodland. Seeing is secondary. This was wasted on these fools who did not even have the basic decency to look at the facts before dragging me through court.

When I gave my evidence I was accused of ambushing the trial because the CPS assumed that I knew nothing of hunting.. When I was able to talk of scenting conditions, how hounds and huntsman communicate, how foxes behave when hunted over then 28 years of experience it was as though I had obtained my knowledge out of sheer spite, as though it was my fault that the police had not briefed him properly on my background. I was asked point blank about the names of the others present which I declined to answer. I was also told that I should have phoned the hunt to ask them if they planned to break the law, apparently we are all supposed to be as gullible, sychophantic and stupid as Thames Valley Police have been when it comes to believing the outrageous lies told by hunts.

One of my witnesses was extremely knowledgeable about hunting. She was the monitor who shot the footage of the hunted deer. The court did not like this at all and it was deemed by the judge that my witness and I were in effect so knowledgeable that we could be considered as expert witnesses. Personally I think that we are both fairly knowledgeable but certainly not in the same league as others who could be called as experts. We could not in law be considered “expert witnesses” as we were both involved in the case but regardless the hunt was given an opportunity to respond with an expert witness of their own and the case was adjourned to December to facilitate this. Bearing in mind that 2 hunt masters had been interviewed and one terrier man all 3 could be considered to have equal or indeed superior knowledge to us.

On 16 December 2009 Austin was the best they could come up with. He squirmed and looked exceedingly uncomfortable when shown the deer footage again making the very inadequate assertion that the hounds just happened to be going in the same direction as the deer. He also said that the special fox scent from the USA was not synthetic which has led me to ponder its origin, the only place I can think of is fur farms where foxes are bred to suffer before being skinned sometimes conscious for idiots who wear fur. It is an educated guess.

I was found guilty of section 69 Criminal Justice Act 1994 it would seem because the police argued that there was no illegal hunting because they had not seen a fox themselves, because the hunt said they were following a trail despite evidence to the contrary and because I did not point out that they were hunting illegally enough times. I was given a 2 year conditional discharge and £400 costs.

__________________post trial_______________________

Of course a decision was made to appeal which was set on 21st September 2010. In between it transpired that the police were shall we say unaware that hunt monitors had in fact made complaints about illegal hunting and other unpleasantness that they had somehow “forgotten” to investigate. Witnesses came forward to testify on my behalf against the hunt now renamed Kimblewick after an attempt to sort out in fighting within the hunt. The CPS were supposed to serve their skeleton argument 2 weeks prior to this date. As it happened the thrust of their argument centred around the Crown vs. Jones judgement which stated that despite the fact that the CJA determines that the disruption of an illegal activity is NOT an offence that the argument about legality can not be used to defend oneself against prosecution. I was given half an hour to decide under pain of immense costs whether to proceed with no defence as we could not use the film or call witnesses. I had no real choice but to abandon the appeal and cut my losses. There were no further costs.

It also transpired that Sergeant Riley having nothing better to do had made a dvd about the heinous crime I had committed for the court walking the exact route and explaining in painstaking detail where the fence was etc. No expense spared, no stone left unturned in stopping the menace of people like me interfering with ripping wild beings to shreds for fun.
My camera was finally given back to me, it is of course broken and unusable.

Skimreading through some of the statements I was appalled to see that PC Calderwood 3596 also Operation Rumble had spent the rest of the day filming sabs. He did not film the hunt, I wonder why not. He also gave Vincent a verbal caution for standing up on his quad bike but accepted his excuse for having no registration plate as being that the quad bike was for agricultural use. Since when has “trail” hunting been agricultural? Anyone who knows about the law of the road also knows unless someone is driving from one field entrance to the next this exemption does not apply but of course Operation Rumble were there only to stop those opposed to hunting not to impartially police both sides so they did not bother to brief themselves or ask for advice concerning what is a common hunt offence I.e no number plates on vehicles.

For more information about Operation Rumble corruption and partiality see these links and note how they are praised by political police unit NETCU;

http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/aboutus/aboutus-sop/aboutus-sop-oprumble.htm contains information about Rumble being exclusively a unit to tackle “animal rights extremism”, not anything else such as illegal hunting for example.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/47/47we09.htm

NETCU’s evidence to the Parliamentary committee on policing and protests outlining Rumble as a blueprint for exclusively dealing with “animal rights extremism”.

http://www.speakcampaigns.org/news/20060115rumbled.php An article explaining how corrupt Rumble are.

http://www.speakcampaigns.org/news/20070530speak16win.php ditto.

The CLA Game Fair

The Country Landowners Association have a Game Fair every year somewhere in the UK. For the uninitiated this is where lots of extremists (about 130,000 of them) get together at a stately home and play with guns and fishing rods, have a few beers and march up and down countless stall selling everything from beaver burgers to canoes, Purdeys shotguns to meeting Clarissa Dickson Wright selling her latest book on the monolithic Countryside Alliance stall.
This year it being at Ragley Hall only a few miles away I went along for a peek. It was strange really that FIT were not there after amongst the tens of thousands milling through were there not those who threatenened to poison the water supply if hunting were banned? What about those who threaten to kill anti hunt campaigners and those who nearly succeed with that promise? Yes I know that some of them were only interesting in mincing up and down the catwalk in full hunting dress to “drink puppy drink” with one vile creature posing with a fishing rod between his legs but I do have a point eh?

Anyway the not so great and not very good attended and I found myself in the debates marquee.
First up was the Daily Telegraph debate “Killing foxes, culling badgers or protecting birds. What shoule the new government do first to help protect the countryside”.
This was chaired by Geoffry Lean environment correspondant to the Daily Telegraph.
The panel were Jim Paice Farming Minister,Mark Avery director of conservation for the RSPB, Douglas Batchelor chief executive of the League Against Crual Sports, Jim BArrington of the Middle Way group and Pauline Kidner founder of the secret world animal sanctuary.
Poor Pauline and Douglas opposed as they are to the slaughter of innocent animals were up against farmers and hunters and were mildly heckled by the assembly. Of most interest was Jim Paice who was very annoyed when I suggested that it was humans who were the problem not badgers. He did say that he did not want to cull badgers mainly so it seemed because of the police protection which would be needed to protect his staff who by the way have never been harmed by activists. An elderly man next to me who was muttering “rubbish” every time Pauline Kidner spoke told me that in an experiment in Staffordshire that he could not get badgers and cows to cross contaminate. There will be a public consultation. I was a little suprised to be confronted by someone who recognised me from when I was a hunt supporter on Exmoor 24 years ago but I did not feel threatened.
There will be a public consultation on the badger cull.

The other debate of interest was the Countryside Alliance making much of the killer fox hysterics sweeping the nation “Urban fox, rural fox:the case for management” Chaired by Simon Hart MP formerly the cheif executive of the CA. On the panel they had Jim Barrington (again), Dr Nick Fox a zoologist, Garrick Hawkes an urban pest controller and as Brian May did not accept an invitation they got some lawyer in who in between promoting his new book “only £5 from the Countryside Alliance” kept asking for new laws to killl lots of other creatures. In the audience were an elderly looking Captain Brian Fanshawe (MFH of the Cottesmore etc) and Baroness Mallileau Labour peer, QC and hunt supporter. I think that it shows what exactly we are up against when Simon Hart was implored by 2 of the panel to make it legal to hunt some of the 10 million cats in the UK especially the feral ones. Of course hunts kill a few cats anyway nothing new there. Furthermore urban fox hunts were mooted to help build communities. I have since found out that blood sports are not unknown in urban areas, I did know about the dog rolling and fighting but now it seems to be the case that a fox is captured, restrained and ripped apart by fighting dogs. Still as long as the lads are having fun, and the people are saved from a horrific death at the jaws of a fox I suppose the CA are happy. It should not suprise me but it still does that it is WE who are considered the violent extremists and not they. Unfortunately my statement to the panel (who were invited to discuss hunts sabs as well) that I am a sab and animal rights activist resulted in just a few groans and not cries of utter terror but they were polite and answered my question which once again centred on us sorting ourselves out as a species and not using every other creature as a scapegoat for our woes.
So I left them to it and went home with a few free magazines extolling the virtues of guns and blasting innocent beings to shreds. Over the 23rd/24th and 25th this went on and how very sad that so many thousands consider it the centre of their very being to kill and maim others. If that is not “extreme” then I don’t know what is!

Arggggh the foxes are coming….PANIC NOW

This has been going on just a little bit. Today the Daily Mail really get going….again. On page 25 we hear the terror of a family who escaped with their lives after a fox cub sat on a bedroom window sill with the inevitable “air of menace” (we hope he pissed on their curtains the wimps).
Things really get going on pages 28-29 with Paul Bracchi’s hilarious investigation into “the real animals” i.e the ANIMAL RIGHTS EXTREMISTS who have dared to question the accepted orthodoxy that
1. a fox mauled the Kouparris twins
2. that as a result all foxes must die
3. that anyone who does not go along with all the histrionics is an animal rights extremist nutter who must be locked away.
4. that the police have to protect the family in case they are attacked by people who do not swallow hook, line and sinker their story.

Right, so the facebook 3 mentioned spoke to one another and used some strong language questioning the story and condemning the murders of innocent creatures which followed. Some of the quotes mentioned are not pleasant but hey we show a couple of examples of naughty death threats and swearing from animal abusers on this site and the police are not protecting us (prabably because some police officers are naughty enough to write some of this stuff maybe), nor do we want them to. Paul wants the FB 3 locked up all the same though. How dare they contradict the Daily Mail?

He also says that they regard babies and foxes as morally the same the heretics. Well the term animal rights or animal liberation in a nutshell is the acceptance that other animals have a s much right to be and to live as humans do, we do not buy the old Abrahamic tradition which dictates humans are more important as a fact without substantiation. We accept that we are evolved from other apes and part of the web of life and not above other species. It is not anti human, this way of living accepts humans as worthy of compassion and respect but extends that courtesy to all living beings. Thus to kill every fox in the area just because one might have injured a baby maybe in a panic whilst escaping is indeed the same as killing every taxi driver in Cumbria the only difference being that if you were to do the latter you might get nicked!Oh yes and the body count as well but then humans are very good at killing, maiming and torturing far better than any other animal.
In fact babies have far more to fear from our own species than any other.
Leaving children alone in gardens or in houses with windows open allowing access is a risk which parents have to take into account. This sounds like a freak accident and a hysterical purge in which entire innocent families are euphemistically “humanely killed” (how is murder “humane”?) should be subject to ridicule and scrutiny.

Good luck to the facebook 3 and we suggest that you get legal advice, the Daily Mail have a nasty habit of demonising people which oft preceeds a police investigation and arrests.

On page 36 Jan Moir gives her two penny worth by saying that because Brian May, that naughty bad man, has questioned the story as well that he should make amends to the family. WTF???!!!!

We hope that the Kouparris family rebuild their lives and that the twins get better quickly from whatever happened and urge that the demonification of an entire species stops as let’s face it compared to humans the great killer ape they are angelic. Even if they do piss everywhere at least they don’t annihilate an entire ecosystem by pouring oil into the sea. As for the media, for goodness sake stop reporting on this shite and voice concerns about real threats to children such as global warming, the putrification of land and water, the steady erosion of our civil liberties etc. It is getting really boring now.

We have yet to view Panorama which also looks at this case…sigh.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.