News RSS Feed


Laurie named as a 'Great Briton'

8:55am Saturday 20th January 2007

comment Comments (12)   Have your say »


A teenager who founded a group in support of animal testing for research condemned animal rights activists who sent letter bombs to two Oxfordshire firms and a third in Birmingham.

Laurie Pycroft, 17, who established Pro-Test a year ago, criticised extremist animal rights campaigners hours after he was recognised as a 'Great Briton' at an award ceremony in London.

Three firms that provide forensic services were targeted on Thursday with what police describe as "crude firework-type explosives" sent in A5 jiffy bags.

A woman at bioscience firm Orchid Cellmark, in Abingdon, was injured by a device, while a second sent to LGC Forensics, in Culham, was spotted as staff were on high alert after the first attack.

The third device was sent to a DNA testing firm in Birmingham. The person opening the letter was not seriously hurt.

It had the return name and address of animal rights activist Barry Horne, who died on hunger strike.

Thames Valley Police acting Deputy Chief Constable Alex Marshall said: "Such deliberate attempts to endanger lives are abhorrent and there can be no justification for such action."

Laurie said: "I think to send a bomb to someone no matter how much you disagree with what they are doing is deplorable.

"We like to think we can win the argument without resorting to such measures."

Laurie was named Campaigner of the Year at the Morgan Stanley Great Briton Awards at London's Guildhall on Thursday.

He set up Pro-Test in January last year when, after a shopping trip to Oxford, he staged a small impromptu protest against a demonstration by animal rights group Speak.

Laurie said: "It is very flattering to be recognised for what I have done, but it is important to remember that it is not just me that has achieved this. It is the result of students, scientists and doctors all helping the cause.

"I guess the reason I won the award is because it is unusual these days for a person my age to take up an issue and I suppose they wanted to recognise that."

Judges said that at a time when youngsters were apathetic about current affairs, it was "very commendable that one so young had taken on a campaigning issue."

"However, to undertake such a potentially dangerous one, which has already had such an enormous impact, shows true bravery and courage," they added.

More than 500 dignitaries attended the awards cere- mony, which recognised outstanding achievements by Britons during 2006.

Genetic fingerprinting pioneer Prof Sir Alec Jeffreys won overall Great Briton of the Year.

Other winners included actress Helen Mirren and artist David Hockney.

Print article » Email to a friend »

Your Say YourOxford Mail

Chris, says...
6:01pm Sat 20 Jan 07

Perhaps April the first has come early, but Laurie Pycroft of the Protest group a'Great Britain'?! The fact of the matter is that he is but the latest in a long line of stooges put in place by the petrochemical industry in its concerted effort to convince us all that animal experiments are worthwhile, rather than the bane to health that they actually are. Once Pycroft's five minutes of fame has expired one can be assured that this 'Great Britain' will very rapidly fade into obscurity like other stooges before him, perhaps content in the knowledge that he has played his part in sending tens of thousands of Britains to an early grave because of the pseudo-scientific practice of vivisection. Meanwhile, he will have been replaced by the next attention-seeker eager to bask in the limelight of a media only too keen to assist in the deception.

Report this post »

Gerrit, says...
6:43pm Sat 20 Jan 07

Well, well, Chris,

Maybe you should start by learning to read properly. The main thrust of Laurie Pycroft's action is against the sending of bombs to people.

These "animal rights" fighters are on a par with the people involved in the 7-7 London atrocities. Are you supporting them, Chris?

The use of bombs to attack people whose work or point of view you disagree with can never be justified - under any circumstances.

The Animal Rights fighters lack credibility - in fact they have never had credibility, because, whilst pretending to be defenders of life, they use means that endanger life. For that reason alone they do the animals whose rights they purport to advocate no favours at all. The only thing they succeed in is putting themselves off-side with ordinary, decent human beings who otherwise might be sympathetic towards the idea of stopping testing on animals.

Are you supporting these pseudo-terorists, Chris?

May I point out to you the fact that in The Netherlands (where I live) at the recent elections an Animal Rights party gained seats in the Parliament - and that this party is quite well respected and therefore much more likely to achieve results than these anarchists of the Animal Liberation and Animal Rights movements whom you seem to support?

By the way, I myself am against the testing of products on animals - but I find the tactics of the radical animal groups shameful and revolting.

That, Chris, is the main issue of this article, not your paranoid preconceptions and ranting about stooges of the petrochemical industry and the media.

Thanks for listening (or not, as you prefer - I don't mind either way).

Gerrit

Report this post »

Derrick, says...
2:57am Sun 21 Jan 07

Well done 3 cheers for Laurie, Chris are you a scientist? I doubt it, all informed people will come to the conclusion other than yours

Report this post »

Chris, says...
6:02am Sun 21 Jan 07

It never fails to amaze me that people are so keen to believe everything they read and hear in the media, nor that apparently only ‘scientists’ can know whether animal experimentation ‘works’ or not. Only an application of commons sense is necessary to see that it does not. Perhaps the task of having to break out into independent thought is too frightening for some? I do not condone violence of any kind, but I do not intend to become dragged into this phoney debate so keenly pushed by the media in order to act as a smokescreen as to the central issue. Therefore, rather than chide me, those who profess an abhorrence of violence might do well to look at the issue of vivisection closer than they probably already have, for here is violence on a grand scale. Not only against hundreds of millions of animals, used as a scapegoat for the poisons the drugs industry is keen to palm off on us, but also on the hundreds of thousands of people killed and injured each year from animal ‘safety-tested’ drugs; damage to our health service with its out of control expenditure; and our planet slowly becoming inhabitable due to the products of the vivisection labs. Here is the real violence for you. All the evidence is there for those who care to look. See www.bava.org.uk for more details. Read Hans Ruesch’s immortal book, Slaughter of the Innocent, and as doctors and scientists are obviously so highly regarded, you might look at the author’s other book, 1000 Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection. Finally, check out the new BAVA film, Bad Medicine, the Human Cost of Animal Experiments.

Report this post »

andy, says...
10:31am Sun 21 Jan 07

Chris....zzzzzzzzzzzzz your so boring zzzzzzzz you can put aside the terroist activities by the people you support, you all say sometimes you don't condone it, but you do nothing to stop it.

Report this post »

Tarbatt, says...
1:18pm Sun 21 Jan 07

Laurie Pycroft really is a weird and creepy little boy. The Mail quotes him, ‘It is very flattering to be recognised for what I have done, but it is important to remember that it is not just me that has achieved this. It is the result of students, scientists and doctors all helping the cause.’ Achieved this? Achieved what? Being photographed looking like an angry Harry Potter shouting at decent, honourable anti-vivisection campaigners? As Chris quite rightly says, he will soon be forgotten, and I look forward to that day.

Report this post »

Chris, says...
3:30pm Sun 21 Jan 07

Andy - my apologies that my postings are not more to your liking. Of course if I had your great literary style...As I have pointed out previously I do not condone criminal activities. If you are unable to read then that is not my problem. In reality it matters not a jot what you, I, or anyone thinks about the subject. At the end of the day a truth remains a truth even if the whole world denies it, just as a lie is still a lie even if the world gladly accepts it. When in years to come vivisection is exposed as the monstrous fraud that it is, killing animals and people alike, the many people who have been gullible enough to have fallen for the nonsense are going to feel very very silly indeed. www.bava.org.uk - bypassing the lie machine.

Report this post »

Gerrit, says...
4:34pm Sun 21 Jan 07

Well done Chris and Tarbatt,

You do manage to avoid the real debate here.

Decent, honourable anti-vivisection campaigners? Huh, if you ask me, if they are decent and honourable, they really have to do something about their image. I do not associate Animal rights campaigners (including anti-vivisectionists) with being decent and honourable. I associate them with indiscriminate, violent and criminal attacks on the life of fellow human beings and the destruction of the livelihood of these people.

Let me state quite clearly: I do not subscribe to the philosophy behind Pro-test. I am not in favour of testing on animals, vivisection etc. (The etc. includes stem cell research involving human embryos, for instance.)

The point however is that the Pro-test protests are using legitimate and democratic methods, and that the people in the laboratories are carrying ou a legal profession.

I even less subscribe to the violent and terrorist methods used by Animal liberationists, vivisectionists and other rabble rousers. As long as they use unlawful and disgraceful methods to try and make their points, I won't even bother considering giving their points of view any thought.

On the contrary, these movements should be outlawed immediately until such time they are prepared to swear off their allegiance to violence against fellow human beings - and show the same in their practices.

Testing on animals in my view is showing a lack of respect for animal life. The methods of Animal Liberationists display a completely lack of respect for the life of human beings - which is far worse.

The issue here is not if the value of animal testing is supported by scientific evidence or not. The issue here is the methods employed by Animal Liberationists and similar movements.

Chris, you keep defending anti-vivisectionist with empty arguments about monstrous fraud - I tell you that such arguments don't make any impression on me. The methods used by the people you support are violent and I simply don't trust them. Your repeated assurance that you don't condone violence and criminal activities to me therefore remains an empty phrase. Because that's exactly what the movements you support are guilty of.

Report this post »

John, says...
6:29pm Sun 21 Jan 07

Okay Chris, so you think vivisection is the conspiracy?? You don't need to be gullible to see it is the right way to go. If you believe in natural selection you will see that animals are inferior to us. If you want to think about some real conspiracies go to www.rense.com

Report this post »

The One, says...
6:32pm Sun 21 Jan 07

Right on John, they want you to think vivisection is the issue to stop you thinking about the real ones like Africa poverty. The ALF are part of the capitalist agenda

Report this post »

SE, says...
9:32am Tue 23 Jan 07

Vivisection legalised, institutionalised violence against people and animals.
Vioxx killed up to 140,000 people. The Northwick Park phase 1 drug trial was disastrous.Even if you are daft enough to believe that animal testing is predictive for humans, the massive scale of ADRs is totally unacceptable and criminal.Both animal experiments and clinical trials should be under review.
Pro-Test, the RDS & newly formed ECBR are trying to block an independent and scientific transparent evaluation of vivisection and relax existing animal welfare laws - very humane and scientific of them.

Report this post »

SE, says...
11:39am Tue 23 Jan 07


Gerrit:
Decent, honourable anti-vivisection campaigners? Huh, if you ask me, if they are decent and honourable, they really have to do something about their image. I do not associate Animal rights campaigners (including anti-vivisectionists) with being decent and honourable. I associate them with indiscriminate, violent and criminal attacks on the life of fellow human beings and the destruction of the livelihood of these people.



But whose fault is that?
The majority of AVs are peaceful and law abiding, but the media chooses to focus on the few extremists. We hear little about longstanding campaigners such as Dan Lyons of Uncaged who was recently awarded a PhD for his research into the evolution of British animal research policy.
Nor of those like neurosurgeon Marius Maxwell and other academics who have joined those protesting against the proposed Oxford primate lab and have written insightful essays on the VERO website.

http://www.vero.org.uk/press7.asp

Scientific anti-vivisectionism's emphasis is on the human right to have safe medicine and medical progress.In that respect, those perpetuating and lobbying for this outmoded methodology could be viewed as the real criminals.

Report this post »

Comments are closed on this article.

Laurie Pycroft, pictured at a demonstration in Broad Street, Oxford, last year Laurie Pycroft, pictured at a demonstration in Broad Street, Oxford, last year

In this section

Essential Links

Sponsored Links



UK Debt Help and Advice | IVA help and advice | The truth about IVAs | Stay with Prague Hotels | Visit Spain with Barcelona Hotels

Local Advertisers


Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »