We love the editor(s) over at Shac Watch so much that we thought we might do a little follow up on the previous Shac Watch, Really, No Really article.
So… they have been busy haven’t they, sadly things have descended into a tangled mess of half facts and ill researched information with some supposedly “personal details” of activists all of which is held together by a sharp new design (apparently our wheatgrass comments hit a nerve…)
What do we know about the Shac Watch authors then…
1. They aren’t police, if they are they are the must be the worst most ill informed community support officers ever.
With all of the research (googling really) that has gone into some of the information on SW it is obvious that there are some glaring omissions which would have been known by any officer actively policing animal rights protests.
2. They are in contact with people who work in the vivisection industry, specifically the Medical Research Council.
So when the report went out about activists being held at MRC Harwell how did they know the name of one of the activists? It wasn’t published anywhere and the security at MRC Harwell were on an information lock down as we found out after posing as a freelance journalist.
3. They fulfil characteristics of a new extremist organisation
Taken from Wikipedia’s Purported characteristics of extremism:
- A tendency to Character assassination
- Name calling and labelling
- The making of irresponsible, sweeping generalizations
- The failure to give adequate proof of assertions made
- Advocacy of double standards
- A tendency to view opponents and critics as essentially evil
- Advocating some degree of censorship and/or repression of their opponents and critics
- Identifying themselves by reference to whom their enemies are
- Widely use slogans, buzzwords and “thought-terminating clichés”
- Claim some kind of moral or other superiority over others
- A tendency to believe that it is justified to do bad things in the service of a supposedly “good” cause
- An emphasis on emotional response, as opposed to reasoning and logical analysis
- Hypersensitivity and “vigilance”
- An inability to tolerate ambiguity and uncertainty
- The personalization of hostility
- A tendency to assume that the system is defective if one is defeated
How long before they don balaclavas and are bricking our windows I wonder?
4. Sadly they are not the protectors of freedom.
I mean, we have no problem with them publishing contact information of activists which is already publicly available on the internet, but editing peoples comments on the Shac Watch site is clearly a pathetic attempt to stifle free speech. It shows a sad disregard for debate and even more sadly they cant take sarcasm as they have deleted a few of our comments in the past rather than respond in kind, it would seem they simply didn’t have the intelligence to respond to most posts even with so much time on their hands.
Who dunnit?
In closing then, we are thinking… Oxford Student? Too stupid to be a professor (we hope!) Maybe the egg throwing idiot? Or maybe a security guard for a lab or breeder. An “Oxford observer”, This could all even be the work of a real life vivisector as we know now it is easy to make the false assumption that those who partake in animal research are at all intelligent, some are clearly off their rockers.
Who knows? If you do know why not drop us a line though… it would be a reet laff to find out!
warn [at] riseup.net or ring us on 01452 539673
A message to Shac Watch from WARN…
We are assuming that the ‘G’ key was broken when you did the WARN is dead article as you clearly had lost your main research tool. We are just glad you care about us so much! We expected a better standard of research from you! P.S. When will we get a copy of the Shac Watch Manifesto / Credo? are we allowed to beat humans up if we join your terror cell?
Filed under: Vivisection, WTF? | Tagged: Shac Watch | 1 Comment »
NETCU WATCH! 