Your Oxford
Get involved: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting 'OXFORD NEWS' to 80360 or email »
Lab protesters demand inquiry
8:54pm Thursday 31st May 2007
Comments (39)Animal rights campaigners whose protest was illegally stopped by police have called for an investigation and say they are considering legal action.
Fourteen members of Speak were cleared at Bicester Magistrates' Court on WednesdayMay30 of refusing to obey police orders during a protest against Oxford University's animal research laboratory.
District judge Deborah Wright found police had acted unlawfully in trying to break up the demonstration outside the Sheldonian Theatre, Broad Street, Oxford, last July.
Speak spokesman Mel Broughton said: "I hope someone, somewhere is going to make the very brave decision to investigate these officers thoroughly.
"I am certainly going to be looking at taking our own proceedings against the police.
"If the system in place won't do anything about it then we have to defend our basic rights - we are going to have to look for a way of doing it ourselves."
Thames Valley Police Deputy Chief Constable Alex Marshall has promised to review the case to consider disciplinary action against the officers involved.
Your Say YourOxford Mail
adad, says...
12:16am Fri 1 Jun 07
It's hardly a shock to peace compaigners to see how corrupt the police are. TVP are essentially shills for big business: they shoudl hang they heads in shame for being so thoroughly compromised.
It's scary to think of the power these empty headed goons have to simply suspend democracy at will. Yes, we have a court ruling in this case. But the police do this day in, day out, abusing their ill gotten authoritarian powers and defecating all over the civil "rights" of the people.
Truth is, nothing will come of this. Alex Marshall won't bat an eyelid. His "review" won't be worth a bucket of *h**. The officers involved are probably tucked up in bed now, with cocoa. Not a care in the world. The proto fascists will back on the streets tommorrow, though, terrorising the British people with their sinister tactics.
Be very diligent, animal activists. It's only a matter of time before the police start shooting us dead as part of their nazi like, midnight raids. But justice and compassion will prevail over the evil ones.
It's scary to think of the power these empty headed goons have to simply suspend democracy at will. Yes, we have a court ruling in this case. But the police do this day in, day out, abusing their ill gotten authoritarian powers and defecating all over the civil "rights" of the people.
Truth is, nothing will come of this. Alex Marshall won't bat an eyelid. His "review" won't be worth a bucket of *h**. The officers involved are probably tucked up in bed now, with cocoa. Not a care in the world. The proto fascists will back on the streets tommorrow, though, terrorising the British people with their sinister tactics.
Be very diligent, animal activists. It's only a matter of time before the police start shooting us dead as part of their nazi like, midnight raids. But justice and compassion will prevail over the evil ones.
Theresa, Banbury says...
7:31am Fri 1 Jun 07
I am a peace activist who was amongst others held unlawfully on a coach without toilet facilities for hours by the police.
Alarm bells should be ringing amongst the general public, as one day it could be you that feels strongly enough about an issue that you wish to protest. If the government happen to disagree with you, it could be YOU that ends up in court/prison.
Alarm bells should be ringing amongst the general public, as one day it could be you that feels strongly enough about an issue that you wish to protest. If the government happen to disagree with you, it could be YOU that ends up in court/prison.
watcher, england says...
8:49am Fri 1 Jun 07
If the terrorists (like to call themselves 'activists') stopped attempting to blackmail the rest of society into adopting their beliefs, they might get some of my sympathy. As it is, all they do is break the law, blackmail, terrorise the innocent, then bleat when the rest of society objects. All power to the TVP, I say.
Will Power, Oxford says...
9:01am Fri 1 Jun 07
Football fans are stopped on coaches and searched,banned from pubs etc and nobody cares but when it happens to animal rights protesters suddenly it's against civil liberties,but what about football fans rights?
David Mitchell, London says...
9:13am Fri 1 Jun 07
Hopefully, the police, i.e, Blair's puppets, will now realize that even they are accountable.
Congratulations to
SPEAK. I wish it every success.
Congratulations to
SPEAK. I wish it every success.
Alice, Cambridgeshire says...
9:47am Fri 1 Jun 07
Animal Rights Protesters are not campaigning for the right to kick a ball around a field or for any personal gratification. Many forego their freedom in order to expose the secrecy of vivisection, factory farming and all the other animal cruelties going on behind closed doors, all the things that those with vested interests dont want the public to see. Unfortunately, people like Will Power of Oxford cant understand why any right minded person would want to do anything for anyone unless they got something out of it themselves.
Mike, Oxford says...
9:53am Fri 1 Jun 07
Would be interesting to see the percentage of actual local Oxford people think about this. It seems that the majority of people speaking up for SPEAK are from other parts of the country. I resent the manner in which SPEAK behave and carry themselves in my city.
Adam, Oxford says...
10:04am Fri 1 Jun 07
Can anyone else see the irony here? Certain "Animal Rights Campaigners" think it is ok to harrass, threaten, blackmail and genrally break the law when it is them doing it but as soon as it happens to them they want to take legal proceedings and have enquiries made.
There is a saying you get what you give so before you start trying to blame everyone else but yourselves i suggest you have a look in your own back yard and understand why they police did what they did.
There is a saying you get what you give so before you start trying to blame everyone else but yourselves i suggest you have a look in your own back yard and understand why they police did what they did.
Mike, Oxford says...
10:04am Fri 1 Jun 07
To correct my bad english:"Would be interesting to see what the percentage of actual local Oxford people think about this."
Paul, Oxford says...
10:12am Fri 1 Jun 07
The police acted foolishly in this case but their actions are understandible (though not justified) by frustration at the actions of a campaign that is very good at staying just within the law while condoning those who break it. SPEAKs campaign has been characterised from the start by aggressive and intimidatory tactics that have often been thinly disguised harassment. At the same time it's friends in the ALF have been firebombing University property, attempting to follow construction workers home (why?) and declaring that staff and students at the University are "legitimate targets for direct action"...Anti-viv code for sending the boys in balaclavas around in the middle of the night.
It must also be remembered that SPEAK has very close links with the campaign of threats, firebombings, vandalism and grave-robbing against the guinea-pig breeders in Newchurch.
I say bring an investigation on, it will enable us to see just how nasty SPEAK really are!
It must also be remembered that SPEAK has very close links with the campaign of threats, firebombings, vandalism and grave-robbing against the guinea-pig breeders in Newchurch.
I say bring an investigation on, it will enable us to see just how nasty SPEAK really are!
Sandy, Oxford says...
10:24am Fri 1 Jun 07
Statistically speaking, 85% of the population are in favour of medical testing on animals to save human life while there is no viable alternative.
Ordinary people working in Oxford often feel threatened and harassed by animal rights campaigners, to the extent that they express the view that they should be beaten, locked up, and come to various other unpleasant ends.
These are mostly people without strong views who are upset that they are considered a target when all they are trying to do is pay their bills in an expensive area.
They see people protesting every Thursday and perceive them as dole-dossing scroungers abusing the tax payer.
"Animal Rights" is a concept frequently described in Oxford circles as "an absence of human rights".
Ordinary people working in Oxford often feel threatened and harassed by animal rights campaigners, to the extent that they express the view that they should be beaten, locked up, and come to various other unpleasant ends.
These are mostly people without strong views who are upset that they are considered a target when all they are trying to do is pay their bills in an expensive area.
They see people protesting every Thursday and perceive them as dole-dossing scroungers abusing the tax payer.
"Animal Rights" is a concept frequently described in Oxford circles as "an absence of human rights".
Chris, Carterton says...
10:25am Fri 1 Jun 07
It seems the only way the police and the powerful can maintain their interests is by abusing power rather than letting the correct influence be used in the correct way.
Attempts have been made to deflect the very rational claims of the SPEAK campaign and others (including notable scientists) that animal experiments are not relevant in todays world of technology, cellular-level analysis and patient study. We have already seen a concerted effort including a local MPs effort, to prevent an independent evaluation of the matter. Why? The last independent evaluation was at Cambridge, where the inquiry concluded that an animal lab isn't what we needed.
Lets have a level playing field, open discussion, and see what the truth really is.
Attempts have been made to deflect the very rational claims of the SPEAK campaign and others (including notable scientists) that animal experiments are not relevant in todays world of technology, cellular-level analysis and patient study. We have already seen a concerted effort including a local MPs effort, to prevent an independent evaluation of the matter. Why? The last independent evaluation was at Cambridge, where the inquiry concluded that an animal lab isn't what we needed.
Lets have a level playing field, open discussion, and see what the truth really is.
Cris, UK says...
10:34am Fri 1 Jun 07
"Statistically speaking, 85% of the population are in favour of medical testing on animals to save human life while there is no viable alternative."
This is unrepresentative of the real views of the public, and I suspect is made up. Opinion polls reveal great uncertainty and strong opposition throughout society over this issue. Opposition grows when medical knowledge increases, because people are recognising the limitations of the animal methopd and theuperiority of the non-animal technology which is starved of funds while animal experimenters still get grants for non-target repeat projects.
Four fifths of doctors support an immediate inquiry into the relevance of animal testing for human medicine, and there's concern among the medical profession over relying on it for human health, because it is so inaccurate. See the film "safer medicine" at www.curedisease.net for what doctors think about this whole business.
This is unrepresentative of the real views of the public, and I suspect is made up. Opinion polls reveal great uncertainty and strong opposition throughout society over this issue. Opposition grows when medical knowledge increases, because people are recognising the limitations of the animal methopd and theuperiority of the non-animal technology which is starved of funds while animal experimenters still get grants for non-target repeat projects.
Four fifths of doctors support an immediate inquiry into the relevance of animal testing for human medicine, and there's concern among the medical profession over relying on it for human health, because it is so inaccurate. See the film "safer medicine" at www.curedisease.net for what doctors think about this whole business.
Will Power, Oxford says...
10:42am Fri 1 Jun 07
Hardly any of these Animal rights protesters are actually from Oxford and local people are getting fed up with them.Why don't these protesters protest abroad in countries like France,Spain and China where animal abuse is much worse than here?
Paul, Oxford says...
10:46am Fri 1 Jun 07
Chris is obviously unaware of the extensive independent review of the use of animals in medical research conducted by the Nuffield council of Bioethics a couple of years ago, which looked at evidence provided by all sides of the debate, and concluded that animal experimentation was justified and made a vital contribution to medical research. Several recent parlimentary inquiries have come to the same conclusion. Another independent inquiry would be a waste of money, and would inevitibly reach the same conclusion (at which point anti-vivs would claim it's a fix).
There are plenty of scientists who are willing to debate animal research, indeed organizations like RDS and the Coalition for Medical Progress exist to do just that. In Oxford the Pro-Test movement was established partly to encourage the scientific community, who overwhemlmingly (though not uncritically) support animal research. Having said that it would be easier to get more scientists to join the public debate if they didn't fear that doing so would result in bricks being thrown through their windows and petrol bombs being placed under their car. It would also be easier for scientists to debate the use of animals in medical research if they didn't have to spend most of the debate debunking the misquotations, distortions, misrepresentations and outright lies of the so called "scientific" anti-vivisectionist movement.
There are plenty of scientists who are willing to debate animal research, indeed organizations like RDS and the Coalition for Medical Progress exist to do just that. In Oxford the Pro-Test movement was established partly to encourage the scientific community, who overwhemlmingly (though not uncritically) support animal research. Having said that it would be easier to get more scientists to join the public debate if they didn't fear that doing so would result in bricks being thrown through their windows and petrol bombs being placed under their car. It would also be easier for scientists to debate the use of animals in medical research if they didn't have to spend most of the debate debunking the misquotations, distortions, misrepresentations and outright lies of the so called "scientific" anti-vivisectionist movement.
Paul, Oxford says...
10:59am Fri 1 Jun 07
Cris wrote:I was going to leave it but Cris (Iles??) latest post is a clanger.
"Statistically speaking, 85% of the population are in favour of
medical testing on animals to save human life while there is no viable
alternative."
This is unrepresentative of the real views of the public, and I suspect
is made up. Opinion polls reveal great uncertainty and strong
opposition throughout society over this issue. Opposition grows when
medical knowledge increases, because people are recognising the
limitations of the animal methopd and theuperiority of the non-animal
technology which is starved of funds while animal experimenters still
get grants for non-target repeat projects.
Four fifths of doctors support an immediate inquiry into the relevance
of animal testing for human medicine, and there's concern among the
medical profession over relying on it for human health, because it is
so inaccurate. See the film "safer medicine" at www.curedisease.net for
what doctors think about this whole business.
He seems to have forgotton another more recent poll which shows that 88% of doctors agree that safety tests should be carried out in animals before proceeing to human trials and that 96% of doctors argee that animal experiments have made an important contribution to many advances in medicine. Interestingly 93% agreed that all medical research data (in vitro, animal and human) can be misleading, which puts Chris's claim in context.
http://www.rds-onlin
e.org.uk/
Kathy, UK says...
11:21am Fri 1 Jun 07
To all those who make comments supporting the dictatorship methods of the police, just remember, you too may want to take up your democratic rights and protest about something one day. Remember the Labour party Conference when people were questioned for wearing anti labour shirts! The bloke who wanted to protest about the war in front of the House of Commons etc etc. This country is becoming a police state and a dictatorship. Regardless of what anyone is protesting about, we have the right to protest without being made to feel criminals. I am a law abiding citizen who has never had so much as a parking ticket, I take up my right to protest and have done on many occasions and have, at first hand, witnessed the unfair and biased attitude of the police, who have in their code of conduct, a clause stating they should remain UNBIASED in carrying out their duties. I am a professional person who works within a code of conduct and until they do the same I can have no respect for them. And as for those who quote statistics re the public being in favour of animal experiments, I suggest you take a look at Europeans for Medical Advancement website or Dr Hadwen Trust etc etc. ETHICAL research which this country should be supporting instead of the UNETHICAL, secretive and archiac methods in use by those who seek to protect their own vested interests i.e. the vivisectionists backed by this Governmenr and their cronies such as Lord Sainsbury
Will Power, Oxford says...
11:57am Fri 1 Jun 07
We do Kathy every Saturday,we are stopped and searched,our details taken down,constantly videoed,turned back on coaches, escorted from railway stations and not allowed to stop to go in the pub,but nobody cares because we are football supporters,if any other group of supporters like animal rights or political were treated the same,there would be uproar.Do you care about our human rights?or do only animals and their supporters matter?
Anonymous, Oxford says...
12:41pm Fri 1 Jun 07
Testing on animals will go the way of slavery and everyone knows that in their bones.
I am more worried about the Police acting as if they were above the law than I am about individuals breaking the law. It's a lot harder to fix. And it's not as if the objectionable tactics of some people are not already covered by criminal law.
I am more worried about the Police acting as if they were above the law than I am about individuals breaking the law. It's a lot harder to fix. And it's not as if the objectionable tactics of some people are not already covered by criminal law.
Tom Holder, Oxford says...
1:09pm Fri 1 Jun 07
The animal rights movement has included a few very violent individuals. Boathouses burned, other buildings with bombs attached, individuals attacked, threatened, blackmailed ... Are the animal rights campaigners really surprised when they find themselves subject to a more careful eye by the police?
Perhaps if they want to gain more respect they should stop challenging the police and start challenging the violent minority within their own.
Considering the leader of the main Oxford protest group only renounced violence BECAUSE he was being watched so closely by police, one can only wonder what sort of impression they are giving off about violence and how it should be dealt with.
Perhaps if they want to gain more respect they should stop challenging the police and start challenging the violent minority within their own.
Considering the leader of the main Oxford protest group only renounced violence BECAUSE he was being watched so closely by police, one can only wonder what sort of impression they are giving off about violence and how it should be dealt with.
Anonymous, Oxford says...
1:38pm Fri 1 Jun 07
"more careful eye"? Hardly. A more careful eye would have been welcome. This is more like a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
Vegan Spam, Oxford says...
3:17pm Fri 1 Jun 07
Look beyond the brainwashing by the money-making animal research and pharmaceutical industries, and their government bedfellows, and ask why there are no CURES for cancer, strokes, Alzheimer's Disease, etc etc and why people are still dying from these human diseases. Anti-vivisectionists are trying to save the lives of football fans et al, as well as animals, by helping people to understand that we have no cures because of animal research. Surely you must wonder why, when we have such technological advances in other areas these days, people are dying from cancer etc. 3 million animals in this country alone are used in animal research and still in the 21st century there is no progress. Can't you see the connection here?
watcher, england says...
4:28pm Fri 1 Jun 07
Forget all the claims and counter claims. All the name calling. Let's cut to the chase.
All supporters of SPEAK, SHAC, ALF, ARM and whatever other pathetic organisations they have, sign a pledge that they will never use any treatment or medication or procedure ever tested on animals. Let them keep a copy about their person, send a copy to their GP and a copy to their lawyer (they've all got lawyers, 'cos they need 'em so frequently).
It's called putting your money where your mouth is...until you do, just shut up.
All supporters of SPEAK, SHAC, ALF, ARM and whatever other pathetic organisations they have, sign a pledge that they will never use any treatment or medication or procedure ever tested on animals. Let them keep a copy about their person, send a copy to their GP and a copy to their lawyer (they've all got lawyers, 'cos they need 'em so frequently).
It's called putting your money where your mouth is...until you do, just shut up.
Vegan Spam, Oxford says...
4:42pm Fri 1 Jun 07
In 2006, the British Medical Association announced that at least
250,000 people are hospitalised every year as a result of adverse drug reactions. An earlier survey revealed that the annual death toll could be as
high as 10,000. A 2004 study found that damaging side-effects of drugs are
responsible for four per cent of hospital bed capacity and cost the NHS £466m a year.
250,000 people are hospitalised every year as a result of adverse drug reactions. An earlier survey revealed that the annual death toll could be as
high as 10,000. A 2004 study found that damaging side-effects of drugs are
responsible for four per cent of hospital bed capacity and cost the NHS £466m a year.
Kit, Oxford says...
4:56pm Fri 1 Jun 07
Vegan Spam wrote:"...the American Medical Association, the Royal Society, the British Medical Association, and the General Medical Council all state that animal experimentation is necessary."
In 2006, the British Medical Association announced that at least
250,000 people are hospitalised every year as a result of adverse drug reactions. An earlier survey revealed that the annual death toll could be as
high as 10,000. A 2004 study found that damaging side-effects of drugs are
responsible for four per cent of hospital bed capacity and cost the NHS £466m a year.
- Jeremy Stangroom, 'What Scientists Think'
daddd, says...
5:13pm Fri 1 Jun 07
There is some extremely weak logic presented by the pro fascists on this board.
Watcher (1) writes: "As it is, all they do is break the law, blackmail, terrorise the innocent, then bleat when the rest of society objects."
This is incredibly meaningless. Activists who break the law tend to accept prison sentences with little complaint. Your reasoning is entirely specious because this is a question of people who have not broken laws. If the police had any evidence against SPEAK, they would be in jail. Fact is, it's a legal organisation.
As a supporter of the ALF, I would argue that animal "extremists" know the likely consequences of their actions (long spells inside) and that the acceptability of this consequence must be weighed into the equation before acting. But this is IRRELEVENT to SPEAK, which has - as the court ruling shows - operated on the right side of the law, consistently. You can bleat on, reflexively, about "terrorists" but this is just mud throwing that has no substance to it.
Will Power mumbles on about football fans, being barred from pubs, etc. The relevance of this is doubtful (I can't recall SPEAK, or the animal rights movement, having an anti football agenda). Your complaint, Will, is with the media, with the police, not with anti vivisectionists. For the record, I am not in favour of anyone's liberty being restricted - it is a travesty that in a 'democracy' football fans have their movement restricted. But this has NOTHING to do with OPPOSING SPEAK. If anything you should see the common enemy: anti democratic forces that have taken over this once great nation.
Mike rambles on about whether SPEAK are prominenlt local, etc. This is, again, irrelevant - is protest only permissble for locals? Are only Londerners allowed to attend anti war marches at Trafalger Square? etc. Of course not. Your point is without any significance: it would not be AT ALL interesting to determine the local constituency of SPEAK, whether one is pro or anti the lab.
Adam, obviously a closet fascist, first in line to lick his master's boots, mumbles on about the police "giving what they give". Obviously there are two problems with this: 1) it is again accusing SPEAK of working sans the law - asserting the very thing it is meant to establish - when all evidence suggests otherwise. Please take into consideration the contents of the article to which you are replying: it helps one form an argument beyond the capabilities of an infant 2) The police's role, in a democracy, is never to give as good as they get: (if it ware, then TVP would be a dman sight more polite than they are).
Sandy settles the debate with reference to "stats" (stats can do anything, baby). Not. Whether people support vivisection or not is irrelevant to the question about whether others should be allowed to protest it. Even if 99.9 pc of the public supported torturing animals, it would not therefore mean that the police are right to behave like a coterie of filthy fascists when one person dissents.
Paul argues that "actions of a campaign that is very good at staying just within the law while condoning those who break it." We either live in a free society or not, Paul. In a democracy it is not the role of the police to target those who stay within the law (your own admitance) however hot under the collar the unprofessional twerps might be.
All in all, the Oxford Mail has clearly attracted the views of a bunch of lapdogs who aren't able to think a thought through with any sort of logic, instead filling the comments page with emotionally reflexs that, at best, can be described as predictable. Theresa wites "one day it could be you that feels strongly enough about an issue that you wish to protest". In this she errs, the bootlickers on this page feel strongly bout nothing, and are being herded to their own damnation. These are the "good germans" who won't ever spot the encroaching police state: begging to be enslaved, pleading to be serfs, these types don't, and won't, protest over anything, not even the slow suicide of a once great nation. These are the kind of idiots who will jump the queue to the incinerators that are coming.
Watcher (1) writes: "As it is, all they do is break the law, blackmail, terrorise the innocent, then bleat when the rest of society objects."
This is incredibly meaningless. Activists who break the law tend to accept prison sentences with little complaint. Your reasoning is entirely specious because this is a question of people who have not broken laws. If the police had any evidence against SPEAK, they would be in jail. Fact is, it's a legal organisation.
As a supporter of the ALF, I would argue that animal "extremists" know the likely consequences of their actions (long spells inside) and that the acceptability of this consequence must be weighed into the equation before acting. But this is IRRELEVENT to SPEAK, which has - as the court ruling shows - operated on the right side of the law, consistently. You can bleat on, reflexively, about "terrorists" but this is just mud throwing that has no substance to it.
Will Power mumbles on about football fans, being barred from pubs, etc. The relevance of this is doubtful (I can't recall SPEAK, or the animal rights movement, having an anti football agenda). Your complaint, Will, is with the media, with the police, not with anti vivisectionists. For the record, I am not in favour of anyone's liberty being restricted - it is a travesty that in a 'democracy' football fans have their movement restricted. But this has NOTHING to do with OPPOSING SPEAK. If anything you should see the common enemy: anti democratic forces that have taken over this once great nation.
Mike rambles on about whether SPEAK are prominenlt local, etc. This is, again, irrelevant - is protest only permissble for locals? Are only Londerners allowed to attend anti war marches at Trafalger Square? etc. Of course not. Your point is without any significance: it would not be AT ALL interesting to determine the local constituency of SPEAK, whether one is pro or anti the lab.
Adam, obviously a closet fascist, first in line to lick his master's boots, mumbles on about the police "giving what they give". Obviously there are two problems with this: 1) it is again accusing SPEAK of working sans the law - asserting the very thing it is meant to establish - when all evidence suggests otherwise. Please take into consideration the contents of the article to which you are replying: it helps one form an argument beyond the capabilities of an infant 2) The police's role, in a democracy, is never to give as good as they get: (if it ware, then TVP would be a dman sight more polite than they are).
Sandy settles the debate with reference to "stats" (stats can do anything, baby). Not. Whether people support vivisection or not is irrelevant to the question about whether others should be allowed to protest it. Even if 99.9 pc of the public supported torturing animals, it would not therefore mean that the police are right to behave like a coterie of filthy fascists when one person dissents.
Paul argues that "actions of a campaign that is very good at staying just within the law while condoning those who break it." We either live in a free society or not, Paul. In a democracy it is not the role of the police to target those who stay within the law (your own admitance) however hot under the collar the unprofessional twerps might be.
All in all, the Oxford Mail has clearly attracted the views of a bunch of lapdogs who aren't able to think a thought through with any sort of logic, instead filling the comments page with emotionally reflexs that, at best, can be described as predictable. Theresa wites "one day it could be you that feels strongly enough about an issue that you wish to protest". In this she errs, the bootlickers on this page feel strongly bout nothing, and are being herded to their own damnation. These are the "good germans" who won't ever spot the encroaching police state: begging to be enslaved, pleading to be serfs, these types don't, and won't, protest over anything, not even the slow suicide of a once great nation. These are the kind of idiots who will jump the queue to the incinerators that are coming.
Tom, Oxford says...
7:55pm Fri 1 Jun 07
Daddd, you yourself have made rash assumptions. You are assuming everything SPEAK have done is legal.
SPEAK have refused to condemn the actions of violent groups such as the ALF. The leader of SPEAK has announced that police surveillance on him is the only reason he does not take part in violent activities. Does this sound like an organisation which is dedicated to standing firmly the right side of the law?
This is not to mention the frankly pathetic nature of mixing up "Pro-animal-research
" and "Pro fascist" .... I'm not sure anyone here has given their views on nationalisation and the solution to combatting communism.
You might also care to consult Godwin's law and "argumentum ad nazium "
SPEAK have refused to condemn the actions of violent groups such as the ALF. The leader of SPEAK has announced that police surveillance on him is the only reason he does not take part in violent activities. Does this sound like an organisation which is dedicated to standing firmly the right side of the law?
This is not to mention the frankly pathetic nature of mixing up "Pro-animal-research
" and "Pro fascist" .... I'm not sure anyone here has given their views on nationalisation and the solution to combatting communism.
You might also care to consult Godwin's law and "argumentum ad nazium "
Paul, Oxford says...
9:03pm Fri 1 Jun 07
Daddd, as Tom says you are in grave danger of being eaten by the Hitler Zombie;-)
On a more serious note I have taken part in many protests and marches over the years on a variety of issues ranging from cuts to local hospice provision to demonstrating against the debacle in Iraq. I'm sure I'll take part in plenty more in years to come. What I have not felt the need to do is to write threatning letters to those who disagree with me, dig up their relatives bodies or try to burn down their property. Such acts have a corrosive effect on our democratic society and only serve to stifle real debate, the very debate that other anti-vivisectionists claim (without foundation in my view) is lacking.
Regardless of the degree to which they were provoked by SPEAK it appears that on this occasion the police were out of line, but everyone (OK almost everyone) knows that on other occasions SPEAK with their thinly veiled threats and support for ALF terrorism have been out of line. It is because of cases like this that I don't believe in leaving the defence of the freedom to conduct important scientific research only to the police, and that's why I support Pro-Test.
On a more serious note I have taken part in many protests and marches over the years on a variety of issues ranging from cuts to local hospice provision to demonstrating against the debacle in Iraq. I'm sure I'll take part in plenty more in years to come. What I have not felt the need to do is to write threatning letters to those who disagree with me, dig up their relatives bodies or try to burn down their property. Such acts have a corrosive effect on our democratic society and only serve to stifle real debate, the very debate that other anti-vivisectionists claim (without foundation in my view) is lacking.
Regardless of the degree to which they were provoked by SPEAK it appears that on this occasion the police were out of line, but everyone (OK almost everyone) knows that on other occasions SPEAK with their thinly veiled threats and support for ALF terrorism have been out of line. It is because of cases like this that I don't believe in leaving the defence of the freedom to conduct important scientific research only to the police, and that's why I support Pro-Test.
nonpareil, plymouth says...
11:43am Sat 2 Jun 07
The pharmacutical industry is the second richest industry in the world after the armament industry. Do people really think its just about helping us? How naive, it's about money, lots of it. It does not use its vast wealth to help us prevent illness, you need illnesses to sell drugs, and that money can be made even at the bottom of the food chain as sales men/women, I know some. I was once recommended to try this industry by a carpenter friend who had become a salesman because of the 'rich pickings' his term not mine. Remember the drugs industry not wanting to help the AIDS children of Africa because they didn't have the money?You might find the following interesting. I recently volunteered for the Breakthrough Breast Cancer research based in London. This involved a couple of blood tests. I'm a long way from London, I had to beg my local GP for an apointment with the nurse to take the blood. She was very abrupt, told me it was time and money to the practice and not to expect it again. She then said; 'I suppose you have breast cancer in the family', my reply; 'no, we have no cancer at all in my family'. Her reply; 'well why are you doing this'. Just to help if I can was my reason. She couldn't understand me. I read all your letters and yes, I've been to Oxford demonstrating and if you Oxford people want me beaten or punished for trying to have a more honest health support system than one solely ruled by money I am sorry for you. But maybe some of you are part of that diabolical system.
Vegan Spam, Oxford says...
1:24pm Sat 2 Jun 07
The police in this country have an 18-week training course before being sent to police stations! How can they be qualified to serve and protect the nation, and be able to make judgments about the law in that short time! Don't forget that the judge found that the police had acted unlawfully in trying to break up the demonstration. So it was the police who acted unlawfully, not the protesters.
Kathy, UK says...
4:35pm Mon 4 Jun 07
Will Power, football supporter, YES I do care about your and everyone elses human rights, so if you are treated in the manner you state then get off your **s and do something about it, put in complaints to the PCA about the treatement you receive from the police, just as animal rights people do. Unless EVERYONE, no matter what their cause, does so when treated unfairly and undemocratically, we will see our human rights eroding even further. And Will, do not assume that because I speak on here about animal issue protests that I do protest and care about other issues. I do, how predictable that you should assume otherwise!
Anita Young, Suffolk says...
1:42pm Tue 5 Jun 07
It has been said that there are only two kinds of people who are pro-vivisection - those who make money out of it and those who don't know enough about it. Animals testing is killing people - from unsafe medicines (fourth major cause of death in Britain) not to mention all those who don't die but suffer serious permanent damage from the side effects. Animal testing is the cause of human diseases - one in three people will now be treated for cancer in their lifetime - why? - because they are being contaminated by harmful substances passed to be safe according to animal testing. One thing is for sure - a LOT of people are making a LOT of money out of sickness and suffering of humans and animals and want to keep it that way.
I support the SPEAK campaign wholeheartedly.
I support the SPEAK campaign wholeheartedly.
james, Bristol says...
11:17pm Fri 8 Jun 07
I would urge you to read the book "War against the Greens" by David Helvarg. People who make money off of such things as environmental destruction and animal cruelty have a vested interest in using their money and power to utterly smash groups that oppose them.
Moe Hong, says...
11:20pm Fri 8 Jun 07
Will Power wrote:Because this is POLITICAL SPEECH that is being censored and the authorities are conspiring to deny the ability of people to protest. It's perfectly fine for them to be stopped and searched; football fans are not denied their right to speak or be heard, however (in fact, as long as Britons are more concerned with the 'rights' of drunken football fans over the right of a law-abiding citizen to speak his mind or protest laws and practices that we find abhorrent and immoral, we'll be stuck in an ethical stone-age).
Football fans are stopped on coaches and searched,banned from pubs etc and nobody cares but when it happens to animal rights protesters suddenly it's against civil liberties,but what about football fans rights?
Seline McGough, Manchester says...
11:23pm Fri 8 Jun 07
Tom Holder wrote:A foolish and inconsistent argument: the Church of England has had a few "very violent individuals," yet the police aren't stringing up yellow tape around every neighborhood church.
The animal rights movement has included a few very violent individuals. Boathouses burned, other buildings with bombs attached, individuals attacked, threatened, blackmailed ... Are the animal rights campaigners really surprised when they find themselves subject to a more careful eye by the police?
Perhaps if they want to gain more respect they should stop challenging the police and start challenging the violent minority within their own.
Considering the leader of the main Oxford protest group only renounced violence BECAUSE he was being watched so closely by police, one can only wonder what sort of impression they are giving off about violence and how it should be dealt with.
h hart, swansea south wales says...
11:18pm Sun 2 Sep 07
give the police an inch and they always stretch it further.why do they not concentrate on paedophiles.but i forgot they to are given the best treatment, same as the animal testers and the builders for the new oxford lab.
h hart, south wales says...
11:23pm Sun 2 Sep 07
Will Power wrote:well if you feel that strongly then do something about it.you could complain to the goverment and continue to do so then that disgusting place will be closed down.did it really need to be spelt out to you .
Hardly any of these Animal rights protesters are actually from Oxford and local people are getting fed up with them.Why don\\\'t these protesters protest abroad in countries like France,Spain and China where animal abuse is much worse than here?
or are you an ex-graduate of oxford yourself.for your info the abuse is just as bad here as it is elsewhere.shifting the blame.bit to good at that aren,t you.
Francis H. Giles, Reading says...
12:28pm Sat 29 Mar 08
You pro-vivisection moaners are the pits. Very few, if any, animal rights protesters are scroungers. You ought to start worrying much more about the hordes of scroungers in UK poncing off the nation's treasury, etc. Many of the dole/incapacity benefit claimants do work on the quiet, bleeding the State's valuable money resources, claiming all sorts of benefits such as council rent rebate, free eye/dental treatment, etc., etc., etc! The UK economy is going on a downward spiral, you nits! You lot will be maybe really whingeing then, but at least it would be a valid sort of whingeing, unlike the biased, non-valid ranting you bombard animal rights protesters with. Wake up! Animal experiments won't save you, certainly not from the many cancer-related diseases.
In this section
- Funeral date set for tragic Ty-Ree
- Suicides prompt closure of Oxford car park's top storey
- Thank you 55,000 times for OX5 Run cash
- Top cops' expenses published
- BREAKING NEWS: Fox & Hounds pub torched in 'arson' attack
- County crime figures show fall in offences
- Jools died in style, say parents
- Disabled upset by loss of Oxford parking spaces
- Pensioners welcome improved Oxford hospitals bus link
- Teenager loses brave fight against cancer
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
M Stoneman, Suffolk says...
9:40pm Thu 31 May 07