Weather
Broughton gets 10 years for animal rights attacks (From Oxford Mail)
Get involved: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting OXFORD NEWS to 80360 or email us
Broughton gets 10 years for animal rights attacks
2:58pm Friday 13th February 2009
Animal rights campaigner Mel Broughton has today been sentenced to 10 years plotting firebomb attacks against Oxford University.
The jury at Oxford Crown Court convicted the 48-year-old of conspiracy to commit arson.
Broughton was charged following the discovery of firebombs found at Templeton College in February 2007 and an attack on The Queen's College sports pavillion the previous November.
Broughton has been the public face of the anti-vivisectionists' campaign against the construction of an animal experiments laboratory in South Parks Road.
He is the leader of campaign group Speak and had said he was only involved in non-violent protests.
It is the first conviction over the attacks on the University.
Broughton, of Semilong Road, Northampton, has just been sentenced to 10 years.
Judge Patrick Eccles said: “The firebombs that you planted at these two buildings were out there as part of a ruthless campaign to instil fear to all those connected to the laboratory, whether they were workers, managers, academics or tradesmen.
“A real and profound sense of fear has pervaded the lives of very many people here in Oxford as a result of the campaign by individuals who have no care for the feelings or sense of security of the innocent men or women who happened to be associated with the laboratory.
“Your involvement in this conspiracy has made a significant contribution to that fear.”
Mel Broughton was so committed to the cause of animal rights he had a vasectomy to allow him to devote his life to his cause.
He made the choice in his 20s after beginning animal rights work as a teenager in the 1970s.
As a 15-year-old he camped out in Scotland to guard osprey nests and later went on to work in animal sanctuaries.
In 1988 he was given a six-month suspended sentence for trying to free a dolphin from an amusement park in Morecambe, Lancashire.
In 1999 he was jailed for four years for conspiracy to cause an explosion likely to endanger life after a bomb was found in his car. He served two-and-a-half years and was freed in June 2002.
In 2003 he co-founded the SPEAC group, which later became Speak, and spearheaded opposition to the building of the laboratory for Oxford University.
More News stories
- Knifeman sentenced to nine years
- BREAKING NEWS: Council tax agreed
- Passengers toast revamped city bus service
- Didcot streets given a clean-up
- Man charged over Littlemore incident
- Speed limits: List of proposed changes
- Norovirus closes hospital wards
- Road closed after lorry hits powerlines
- Shaky start to Sunday opening at Covered Market
- Police and council at odds over cutting 49 county speed limits
Your Say YourOxford
BigAlan, Eynsham says...
3:16pm Fri 13 Feb 09
cottage2day, Oxford says...
3:30pm Fri 13 Feb 09
Quentin Walker, Oxford says...
3:46pm Fri 13 Feb 09
It's about time 10 years meant 10 years.
AR2048, says...
3:55pm Fri 13 Feb 09
Strange how many of those who claim to be against violence actually support extreme and lethal violence against innocent and defenceless animals in labs.
NAVS has very recently presented its undercover investigation into the global primate trade for vivisection - see for yourselves what Really goes on inside labs, inside the notorious Huntingdon Life Sciences....you'll see the original violence that Mel and SPEAK are just trying to stop.
Anyone who is against randomly killing some humans for the intended medical benefit of other humans should watch the video...it explains why experiments on other species are futile, and dangerously misleading, sometimes fatal for humans.
barns, oxford says...
4:12pm Fri 13 Feb 09
Go contract Polio mate , without animal testing that'd still be around...
Big up the foi gras!
Kevin_Elliott, Oxford says...
4:15pm Fri 13 Feb 09
Test tubes and computers won't completely predict a drugs effect on blood pressure, or circulation, or the nervous system, or the drug's effect on pregnancy. Animal models can help there, since animals are a better model for humans than any computer or test tube.
Violent campaigns against animal research will not only affect those carrying out life saving research. They will also hurt those humans with life threatening diseases and disabilities.
If the animal rights movement had a case, they wouldn't need to resort to violence.
AR2048, says...
4:17pm Fri 13 Feb 09
Have you watched the video? Read the report? I urge you to do that...because surely you are against randomly killing some humans for the intended medical benefit of other humans...aren't you?
cottage2day, Oxford says...
4:20pm Fri 13 Feb 09
Kevin_Elliott wrote:I 100% agree, do you think these protestors actually know what cures have been found through animal testing. Its either them or us.
Contrary to what AR2048 says, animal testing remains essential to medical research. While test tubes, tissue research and computers can complement animal models, they can't replace animals in the lab. Test tubes and computers won't completely predict a drugs effect on blood pressure, or circulation, or the nervous system, or the drug's effect on pregnancy. Animal models can help there, since animals are a better model for humans than any computer or test tube. Violent campaigns against animal research will not only affect those carrying out life saving research. They will also hurt those humans with life threatening diseases and disabilities. If the animal rights movement had a case, they wouldn't need to resort to violence.
AR2048, says...
4:31pm Fri 13 Feb 09
Contrary to what you claim it is in fact the 21st century - these days we know that each species is different at the cellular and molecular levels and that even tiny, tiny genetic variations betwen individuals of the SAME species make ALL the difference to how an individual reacts to any drug.
These days we know why results from other species do not, cannot, predict effects in humans...other species are NOT 'better models', we need scientific, human-relevant research not invalid-for-humans, dangerously misleading results.
Your claim re 'violent campaigns... hurt those humans with life threatening diseases and disabilities.' is laughable - we've been experimenting on other species for around 2000 years...how many more thousands of years do you want people to wait for safe, effective treatements and cures?
As for "If the animal rights movement had a case, they wouldn't need to resort to violence" - tell it to the suffragettes, tell it to Mandela! Oh and read Uncaged Campaigns' 'Diaries of Despair' report to see how govt colludes and covers-up to thwart legal campaigning.
rockchick1, oxford says...
4:32pm Fri 13 Feb 09
maybe he will take time to think of the human lives his actions have put at risk.
AR2048, says...
4:38pm Fri 13 Feb 09
I assume you don't support randomly killing some humans for the intended medical benefit of other humans...that is what is happening WITH animal experiments.
I urge you to read the "Save the Primates" report and watch the video....if you feel you can't be bothered then please consider this quote from Mike Hancock CBE MP.
'It is astonishing that animal testing has never been scientifically evaluated. The process is long overdue’.
AR2048, says...
4:42pm Fri 13 Feb 09
I take it you are not aware that in the US alone each year around 100,000 humans are actually killed by adverse reactions to medicines....what about those humans, don't they matter, are they just considered disposable like the animals in labs?
Andrew:Oxford, Oxford says...
4:45pm Fri 13 Feb 09
I'm confused. Your posts aren't terribly clear.
Are you a protester or a pro-tester?
barns, oxford says...
4:48pm Fri 13 Feb 09
dillbert, Witney says...
4:48pm Fri 13 Feb 09
AR2048 wrote:I expect this hypocrite will be down to the doctors tonight for their prescription. we have to accept in these days of disease that remedies need to be tested before they are prescribed to children and the unwell. Ten years is not a moment too long
I trust there will be an appeal, the DNA evidence seemed entirely unreliable, but anyway it makes no difference to the movement for animal rights. Strange how many of those who claim to be against violence actually support extreme and lethal violence against innocent and defenceless animals in labs. NAVS has very recently presented its undercover investigation into the global primate trade for vivisection - see for yourselves what Really goes on inside labs, inside the notorious Huntingdon Life Sciences....you'll see the original violence that Mel and SPEAK are just trying to stop. Anyone who is against randomly killing some humans for the intended medical benefit of other humans should watch the video...it explains why experiments on other species are futile, and dangerously misleading, sometimes fatal for humans.
dr_sam, oxford says...
5:09pm Fri 13 Feb 09
to take just one of your arguments -
"Anyone who is against randomly killing some humans for the intended medical benefit of other humans should watch the video...it explains why experiments on other species are futile, and dangerously misleading, sometimes fatal for humans"
And your answer to this problem is....?
I expect you'll say "cell culture, human experimentation, computer modelling..."
but while all these are extremely valuable, they are no substitute for animal research. single cells are hopelessly incomplete, it'll never be ethical to give humans untested compounds, and, well, if we knew enough to be able to model it all on a computer then we wouldn't need to research.
No, animals aren't a perfect model. yes, sometimes there are adverse effects of treatments in humans that weren't predicted in animal studies.
So what do you suggest?
Should we just give up on developing treatments for disease and go back to having a life expectancy of 40?
AR2048, says...
5:15pm Fri 13 Feb 09
Have you watched the video and/or read the report?
AR2048, says...
5:19pm Fri 13 Feb 09
Lol - aw bless, no rational arguments to make.
cottage2day, Oxford says...
5:25pm Fri 13 Feb 09
AR2048 wrote:So do you agree with what the prat in the article has done?
Andrew - I'm a protester, I'm not someone who supports randomly killing some humans for the intended medical benefit of other humans. Have you watched the video and/or read the report?
I personally think it is trial and error, humans will die, animals will die, but it is much better for animals to die than for us. If 100 die to save a 1000, then yes i dont see a problem with that, it would be for the greater good.
AR2048, says...
5:27pm Fri 13 Feb 09
In fact 'every prescription is a clinical trial' - this is because even tiny, tiny genetic variations between individuals of the SAME species make ALL the difference to how an individual reacts to any drug...
this is why we need scientific human-relevant research and testing, not the nonsense of experiments on other species.
Do you really support randomly killing some humans for the intended medical benefit of other humans?
That IS what is happening WITH animal experiments.
Kevin_Elliott, Oxford says...
5:28pm Fri 13 Feb 09
Every drug tested on animals is also tested on complimentary models, such as test tubes and computers. If a drug doesn't work in humans, it's also failed with these complementary models.
It's now possible to breed rats and mice with the gene that causes CF, giving us realistic models to work with. Again, that's something that can't be done with test tubes and computers.
I've recently had major spinal surgery, which has relived some appalling pain I was suffering. Bone was taken from my hip and grafted into my neck. This was only possible thanks to bone fusion research on sheep. Again, that's something that can't be done on test tubes and computers.
Animal testing works. If it didn't, I'd still be in pain, and children with CF would still be dying at birth.
cottage2day, Oxford says...
5:30pm Fri 13 Feb 09
Kevin_Elliott wrote:Well Said. I don't see how anyone can argue with facts like these
Forty years ago children with Cystic Fibrosis (CF) died at birth. Now they are living into their forties and longer. This is due largely to animal based research. Animals share much of their cellular and genetic material with us, and are better models than test tubes and computers, which have neither cells or genes. Every drug tested on animals is also tested on complimentary models, such as test tubes and computers. If a drug doesn't work in humans, it's also failed with these complementary models. It's now possible to breed rats and mice with the gene that causes CF, giving us realistic models to work with. Again, that's something that can't be done with test tubes and computers. I've recently had major spinal surgery, which has relived some appalling pain I was suffering. Bone was taken from my hip and grafted into my neck. This was only possible thanks to bone fusion research on sheep. Again, that's something that can't be done on test tubes and computers. Animal testing works. If it didn't, I'd still be in pain, and children with CF would still be dying at birth.
AR2048, says...
5:41pm Fri 13 Feb 09
I've looked into it myself for many years - I've been convinced by what is said by vivisectors themselves.. what they say out of the public domain.
"but while all these are extremely valuable, they are no substitute for animal research. single cells are hopelessly incomplete"
The problem with your claim though is the indisputable fact that each species is different to every other species at the cellular and molecular levels, which is where disease occurs.
Also, that tiny, tiny genetic variations between individual of the same species make ALL the difference to how an individual reacts to a drug - which is why we need scientific, human-relevant methods.
"it'll never be ethical to give humans untested compounds, and, well, if we knew enough to be able to model it all on a computer then we wouldn't need to research."
Are you, Dr, unaware that 'every prescription is a clinical trial'? I urge you to watch the video, and visit the Safer Medicines website.
"animals aren't a perfect model. yes, sometimes there are adverse effects of treatments in humans that weren't predicted in animal studies."
Look up the extremely high number of drugs which have 'passed' animal tests but fail in clinical trials.
"So what do you suggest?"
I suggest people stop supporting randomly killling some humans for the intended medical benefit of other humans, watch the video, read the report and visit the Safer Medicines website for further details of scientific, human-relevant methods.
brookesalum, Oxford says...
5:44pm Fri 13 Feb 09
Your references are a little one sided though, to redress the balance may I also direct people to http://www.pro-test.
org.uk/facts.php which offers good background to why animal research is still necessary.
Zimmer, Oxon says...
5:46pm Fri 13 Feb 09
AR2048, says...
5:49pm Fri 13 Feb 09
I think it was a miscarriage of justice but anyway tbh I'm rather more concerned about the humans who are being killed by 'animal tested' drugs.
Deaths caused by AR campaigners = 0
Deaths caused by 'animal tested' drugs = 100,000 each year in the US alone
"I personally think it is trial and error, humans will die, animals will die, but it is much better for animals to die than for us."
Humans are dying though!
"If 100 die to save a 1000, then yes i dont see a problem with that, it would be for the greater good."
Erm...sorry, do you mean if 100 humans die to save 1000 that's ok with you?
Sophia, Oxford says...
6:38pm Fri 13 Feb 09
Lets not hear this rubbish about 'animal rights' - animals cannot have rights in law, any more than a tree or a stone can.
These are terrorists, pure and simple, people who get off on the self righteousness of hating and harming other people who are going about their lawful business.
'AR2048' with his/her refusal to condemn terrorism, and nauseating pretence that this is all about protecting people (!)is a suitable case for the police's attention and hope she/he gets it.
Hunt the terrorists down, no hiding place.
AR2048, says...
6:49pm Fri 13 Feb 09
No actually, it has been studying humans that have led to advances and longer life expectancy, eg CF Trust Levy Lecture 04.
"Animals share much of their cellular and genetic material with us"
Indeed - in fact all species, from insects to humans, plants and animals, follow the same design - not only are they formed from the same DNA units (A, T, C, and G), they are also assembled using the same process.
However, the crucial point is that while all plant and animal species share the same genetic material, it is the composition, or arrangement, of this genetic material that makes ALL the difference.
I expect you would agree that humans share considerably more cellular and genetic material with other humans - yet still some humans will have CF, cancer, heart disease etc etc while other humans do not, and drug/treatment outcomes also vary between individuals.
Tiny, tiny differences in arrangment of material makes ALL the difference. Other species are simply NOT better models than scientific, human-relevant methods.
"It's now possible to breed rats and mice with the gene that causes CF, giving us realistic models to work with."
They are not at all realist models though, researchers themselves admit that CF mice don’t effectively represent human patients.
The mice don’t suffer the same symptoms of CF even though they have a mutation in a gene in the equivalent spot to human CF patients.
"I've recently had major spinal surgery...This was only possible thanks to bone fusion research on sheep."
Not true, it was because of experiments on humans, and you seem oblivious to the fact that for many patients such surgery is unsuccesful and they remain in pain, some are even worse than before the surgery.
This is typical of pro-vivisection claims, just ignore all the failures and deaths.
AR2048, says...
6:54pm Fri 13 Feb 09
Easy to argue with such statements - it is an indisputable fact that each species is different to every other species at the cellular and molelcular levels, which is where disease occurs.
It is also an indisputable fact that tiny, tiny genetic variations within the same species make all the difference re diseases and reactions to medicines.
So, can you counter these hard facts?
Btw I take it then you haven't read the report nor watched the video, I urge you to do that if you don't want to support randomly killing some humans for the intended medical benefit of other humans.
Kevin_Elliott, Oxford says...
7:04pm Fri 13 Feb 09
Recent research on CF has revolved around mice, not humans.
In 1992 four medical research teams in Britain and the USA bred mice with defects in their cystic fibrosis genes. In 2004 a further strain was added. Using this scientists were able to show that having enough liquid on airway surfaces is the key to preventing mucus build-up in the lungs. This will be useful for testing lung treatments.
The underlying lung damage in CF is caused by high concentrations of salt, and the mechanism has been identified in CF mice as a defect in fluid transport. Several ways of correcting this have been developed in mice.
Research using CF mouse models has shown that it is possible to deliver a 'good' copy of the CFTR gene using liposomes to the lungs, which corrects the biochemical defect and restores normal lung function. This paved the way for clinical trials of non-viral gene therapy in the UK, which reported evidence of short-lived gene correction. These small trials in CF patients showed that the gene could be safely delivered to the cells lining the nose and that it has a positive effect on the underlying defect in the lungs. A shortened ‘minigene’ has been shown to be equally effective and easier to deliver.
Now working together as a consortium backed by the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, three UK groups in London, Oxford and Edinburgh, have made substantial improvements to the gene therapy protocol. This has been tested in mice and sheep in preparation for further clinical trials. Fifteen CF volunteers are to join a single dose gene therapy trial in 2007, while a further 200 people are to be monitored. In 2008 up to 100 of these people will be recruited into a multi-dose gene therapy trial.
Orginal research on bone fusion was carried out on sheep and goats, not humans. Look at
http://cat.inist.fr/
?aModele=afficheN&cp
sidt=18562302
The sucess rate for the particular operation I had is now well over 99% - that's a massive success for animal testing.
Computers and test tubes don't have any of the cellular and genetic material that humans have. They will be less effective than animal models for the next few decades at least.
AR2048, says...
7:05pm Fri 13 Feb 09
Totally disagree about rants etc from the anti-side but thanks anyway :)
"I don't agree with you, but I hope saying this wont result in a tirade of abuse!"
**#*#! - ha ha only joking - I'd be interested to know which of the facts I've given you dispute then?
"Your references are a little one sided though, to redress the balance may I also direct people to http://www.pro-test.
org.uk/facts.php which offers good background to why animal research is still necessary."
I've looked through that site many times - it's full of unsupported claims (x did y therefore z) but I haven't been able to find any explanation of any scientific case for, I can't find anything which shows us any causal link - have you been able to find any such on the site, if so would you post the link, thanks.
Have you watched the NAVS video or read the report?
AR2048, says...
7:16pm Fri 13 Feb 09
Why on earth would they do that?
Oh yes of course, silly me, because our civil liberties have been so eroded that no-one can even say anything not in accord with the government's agenda without 'anti terrorism' laws being invoked, even legal protest...including heckling some will recall...is considered subversive.
AR2048, says...
7:43pm Fri 13 Feb 09
Why not exactly?
"These are terrorists, pure and simple"
I take it you watched the NAVS "Save the Primates" video then, saw the innocent and defenceless sentient individuals kidnapped from their families in the wild, saw them imprisoned in tiny, barren cages, saw them screaming and struggling as tubes were forced down their throats, as they were forced to inhale toxic fumes.
What had they ever done to deserve such horrific extreme and lethal violence against them - nothing at all.
"people who get off on the self righteousness of hating and harming other people who are going about their lawful business."
I take it then you don't support the current situation of randomly killing some humans for the intended medical benefit of other humans - nor do I, it is a totally unacceptable situation.
"'AR2048' with his/her refusal to condemn terrorism"
Ah...so are you going to condemn the extreme and lethal violence in the NAVS video? Can't wait :)
"and nauseating pretence that this is all about protecting people (!)"
It is about protecting humans, with animal experiments humans ARE being randomly killed for the intended medical benefit of other humans - that's a fact, don't you care about those humans?
"is a suitable case for the police's attention and hope she/he gets it."
Bet the police state can't become official quick enough for you eh? :)
"Hunt the terrorists down, no hiding place."
Yea, down with free speech, no to freedom of assembly, no to freedom of belief, no to polite debate, no to facts which don't suit big business, no to safe and effective medicines for all....
but s'ok to keep on randomly killing some humans for the intended medical benefit of other humans of course, that's not terrorism is it oh no...that's er...erm...that's...
erm...
AR2048, says...
10:48pm Fri 13 Feb 09
No...so you are wrong again :)
"Recent research on CF has revolved around mice, not humans."
Nice try but I actually said 'it has been studying humans that has led to advances and longer life expectancy, eg CF Trust Levy Lecture 04.'. Did you not bother to look?
We know experiments are carried out on animals, no-one is disputing that...what is being said is that as each species is different to every other species at the cellular and molecular levels it is impossible to scientifically / safely apply results from other species to humans...
THAT is the fundamental fact you need to counter, so as to then show the causal link....can you counter it (with hard facts not more statements)?
"In 1992 four medical research teams in Britain and the USA bred mice with defects in their cystic fibrosis genes."
It is well recognised in scientific literature that such animal models of CF do NOT reflect the condition in patients, in fact because of that they are now trying to use pigs instead!
They are not sure though if the pigs will fail as the mice 'models' did- but hey it's only vital resources they are squandering research a different species, resources that could be put to scientific, human-relevant CF research.
"In 2004 a further strain was added. Using this scientists were able to show that having enough liquid on airway surfaces is the key to preventing mucus build-up in the lungs. This will be useful for testing lung treatments."
Wrong again, it's all considerably more complicated than you seem to think, try this link
The genesis of cystic fibrosis lung disease
http://www.pubmedcen
tral.nih.gov/article
render.fcgi?artid=40
7906
Remember that for years vivisectors have been leading us to believe the CF mouse models are very good, are 'vital' to find cures, etc, etc...well guess what, nowadays the CF mouse 'models' are rubbish, so bad that they desperately need a new animal 'model'...and so now they are starting again experimenting on pigs...and telling us the same old nonsense as they used to tell us about the mouse 'models'..blah blah vital, blah blah cures...
I know this will come as a huge shock to some people but - brace yourselves -humans are not mice...and nor are humans pigs. Really!! We should have guessed, what with them being completely different species and all that.
This from Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol May 2008 "Although the gene encoding the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) has been targeted in mice, CF mice fail to develop lung or pancreatic disease like that in humans"
It goes on to state that a "major impediment" to being able to understand CF pathogenesis, and new treatments, is...yes what a surprise..."the limitation of current animal models."
And also that despite so-called CF mice have been created "they do not develop airway disease resembling that typically found in humans (87, 88)."....and it goes on to say they don't know why though!
"The underlying lung damage in CF is caused by high concentrations of salt"
See above link "The genesis of cystic fibrosis lung disease"
"Several ways of correcting this have been developed in mice."
Brilliant, wonderful..we've managed to artifically create a vaguely CF condition in healthy mice and then corrected it.....I don't want to be pernickety but I can't help but think we actually need cures for humans with CF....where are those cures?
"Research using CF mouse models has shown that it is possible to deliver a 'good' copy of the CFTR gene using liposomes to the lungs, which corrects the biochemical defect and restores normal lung function."
Oops, you forgot to mention the previous animal experiments with the adenoviral vector CFTR delivery which 'succeeded' so went to human clinical trials...
which had to be stopped stopped when it became clear that a potentially dangerous inflammatory response occurred in the lungs and systemically, and that gene expression was only transient.
Still never mind all the humans put at such risk and actually harmed, and indeed many killed, by dangerously misleading animal experiments, let's forget the overwhelming majority of failures and harms to humans and instead just promise cures sometime in the future.
"Orginal research on bone fusion was carried out on sheep and goats, not humans. Look at...."
I've looked, that isn't about the original bone research, it even says that "several studies have been performed to investigate enhancement of this type of autograft fusion." (ie such was already being carried out).
The author of this is looking at the efficacy of pure Mg particles in posterolateral spinal fusion.
As I've said, no-one is denying animal experiments were carried out, it is the fact that results simply cannot be scientifically/safel
y applied to humans that is the crucial point.
In fact, clinical transplantation of bone dates back to the 17th century, human allogeneic bone has been successfully used as an alternative to autogenous bone since 1878.
"The sucess rate for the particular operation I had is now well over 99% - that's a massive success for animal testing."
That's a massive failure of logic...it might 'now' be over 99% with Your specific operation - and there are various associated - but the keyword you failed to note was that 'now' - as with all surgical procedures the success rate increases the more times they are carried out on humans!
Your operation wasn't successful because of animal testing but because of all the previous learning gained from operations on humans.
The more they practice on humans the more routine, more successful, the operation becomes, that's how it always is.
"Computers and test tubes don't have any of the cellular and genetic material that humans have."
Other species though do not have the genetic make-up of humans, humans don't even have exactly the same genetic make-up as all other humans. As I've explained, tiny, tiny genetic variations make ALL the difference - this is the crucial point you need to counter.
"They will be less effective than animal models for the next few decades at least."
They couldn't be less effective than animal 'models' which are 100% flawed because it is impossible to scientifically/safel
y apply the results to humans....
they never know until AFTER testing on humans whether or not the previous results from other species accord..
thus the drugs and treatments are actually being tested in humans, in clinical trials and post-marketing.
Have you watched the NAVS video and read the report?
itsmick, Oxford says...
11:53pm Fri 13 Feb 09
beetle & wedge, Chippy says...
7:08am Sat 14 Feb 09
In passing, and anecdotally, my contacts with 5 animal terrorists suggest they are a mixture of the brutish (lads and lasses up for a scrap) the mentally disordered (Auntie Veras from the Giles cartoons) and the scheming (Mel I fancy falls into this category, usually men, with time on their hands because of nulabours wonderful welfare utopia)
making sense, oxford says...
7:12am Sat 14 Feb 09
Sophia, Oxford says...
7:45am Sat 14 Feb 09
"Why not exactly?"
Because a legal right is something that the entity possessing that right enjoys and is capable of enforcing in law. Which a tree, a stone, or flea, annot do. What we have is laws that stop people doing certain things to animals, in the same way as they stop them doing certain things to the landscape. There is also the slight difficulty that if a rat has a right not to be torn to pieces, how does it enforce that right against cats and dogs - or bigger rats for that matter - when humans arent around? 'Animal rights' are a sentimental nonsense without meaning, expect to justify your hatred of your fellow humans.
The posts here make clear what the vast majority of people feel about you and your half arsed propoganda, and your pathetic pretence that you are 'really' only concerned about risks to them.
I hope they gte you and that you spend many happy years banged up.
Zimmer, Oxon says...
1:30pm Sat 14 Feb 09
making sense wrote:There is nothing new to spout they've said it all and are still in a minority unable to convince the majority and a bit like Hitler and Moseley resort to violence to try to get their pointless message across.
He may be locked up. But he must have a P.C. in his luxury room, Cos AR2048 is obviously his new log in. If it is not him, then his mate should be locked up too, before he carries on his work. P.S. AR (is that short for arse?) There are a million pages on the web spouting your propaganda, can't you come up with something original
You're right he is a person with too much time on his hands and probably receiving Benefits at our expense. He's obviously not a person in gainful employment!!!!!!!!!!
BigAlan, Eynsham says...
1:43pm Sat 14 Feb 09
As for AR2048, time to upfate your information, as usual barking up the wrong tree.
tanchris, oxford says...
6:53pm Sat 14 Feb 09
AR2048, says...
8:12pm Sat 14 Feb 09
Have you bothered to read the report? Have you bothered to watch the video?
www.savetheprimates.
org/primateban/news
Or is it too much bother for you to see true evil - evil that is being perpetrated in YOUR name.
BigAlan, Eynsham says...
8:17pm Sat 14 Feb 09
Oh and yes, the mighty yellows yet again get three points, but i still think the play offs are a little out of reach now we have lost those 5 points.
AR2048, says...
8:28pm Sat 14 Feb 09
No - funnily enough - AR is for Animal Rights, 2048 is the target year by which we will have a Universal Declaration of Animal Rights...but the way things are going it could be sooner :)
"The first is that animals don't have "rights" because they don't have duties."
People often say this but I don't understand why because Rights are about protecting the weak from the powerful.
So, babies, severely brain-damaged etc humans need protection by Rights and are not expected to fulfill any 'duties' in order to receive that protection.
"We have an obligation to treat them morally because that is an essence of humanity."
I'm glad you say that because they are not being treated morally and I hope you will help to bring about the change that is needed.
"...appear to think that animals are simply human beings without the ability to express themselves."
Don't know what you've been reading but it obviously wasn't animal rights literature!
Animals need Rights for the same reason humans need Rights, to protect them from power-holding humans.
AR2048, says...
8:36pm Sat 14 Feb 09
You flatter me ;)
"If it is not him, then his mate should be locked up too, before he carries on his work."
Hmmmm...wanting people just locked up on no evidence of criminal activity whatsoever....you must be a NuLabour supporter.
"P.S. AR (is that short for arse?)"
No Making sense (is that short for 'NOT making sense?) :)
AR2048, says...
9:04pm Sat 14 Feb 09
Your argument fails though because many humans are not capable of enforcing their rights in law so another human acts for their interests on their behalf.
"What we have is laws that stop people doing certain things to animals, in the same way as they stop them doing certain things to the landscape."
Animals though, as humans, are free-willed, free-moving, sentient individuals, they experience emotions, they feel hunger, thirst pain etc etc, they communicate visually and verbally with others, have relationships with others, seek to protect their babies, have the survial instinct, they seek to preserve their own lives.
"There is also the slight difficulty that if a rat has a right not to be torn to pieces, how does it enforce that right against cats and dogs - or bigger rats for that matter - when humans arent around?"
As with humans Rights are about protection from humans who wield great power. (Human Rights are about protection from the State).
"'Animal rights' are a sentimental nonsense without meaning, expect to justify your hatred of your fellow humans."
It isn't at all though - you don't I'm sure you don't think that, for example, the battle for women (who were once regarded as property in law) to have rights was actually about hatred of men?
Animal Rights is about Extending the circle of compassion, to include other sentient individuals with whom we share this planet.
"The posts here make clear what the vast majority of people feel about you and your half arsed propoganda"
It isn't 'propaganda', there is no rational moral reason to deny animals rights and the scientific case against vivisection is a matter of indisputable fact.
"I hope they gte you and that you spend many happy years banged up."
That's really scary, no wonder NuLabour is able to get away with eroding civil liberties, I'm politely posting entirely legal comments on a comment board and you want me locked away for years for doing that....that's really scary....
hey, thank goodness for Human Rights with people like you clamouring to lock up people because You don't like their opinion :)
AR2048, says...
9:20pm Sat 14 Feb 09
The suffrage and anti-apartheid movements didn't happen overnight y'know, those campaigners didn't put forward their entirely reasonable arguments one day and everyone said 'oh yes of course, we'll change the law immediately'. As history shows us moral progress takes time...but gets there :)
"and a bit like Hitler and Moseley resort to violence to try to get their pointless message across."
Anyone considering the issue Objectively could only come to the conclusion that those acting like tyrannical despots are vivisectors and their ilk.
"You're right he is a person with too much time on his hands"
Like you you mean as you are posting here too?
"and probably receiving Benefits at our expense."
Actually I've probably far more money than you but so what, the validity of an opinion isn't determined by how much money someone has. It is strange though how you 'human-lovers' seem to so hate humans on benefits :)
AR2048, says...
9:45pm Sat 14 Feb 09
I'm sure it helps you live with your conscience to believe that but it isn't true , for example Uncaged Campaigns' 'Diaries of Despair' report
(from the report) 'Between 1994 and 2000, hundreds of higher primates were subjected to grotesque 'xenotransplantation
' experiments.
Hearts and kidneys from genetically engineered piglets were transplanted into the necks, abdomens and chests of monkeys and baboons captured from the wild. The primates were then injected and force-fed massive doses of immune-suppressing drugs...'
That report and what subsequently happened prove that government does NOT enforce the regulations, that government colludes and covers-up breaches...including the ILLEGAL experiments on primates that took place inside the notorious Huntingdon Life Sciences.
Please see for yourself, see the facts - the documents are there for you to see - what is really going on inside labs
www.xenodiaries.org
The NAVS undercover investigation into the global primate trade for vivisection took place between 2006 and 2008. Please read the report, you surely owe it to yourself to know what is really going on -
www.savetheprimates.
org/files/stpreporte
n.pdf
"the testing is licenced by the Home office and you have to prove you are unable to test in any other way before being allowed to use an animal."
The fact though is that it doesn't happen in reality - goverment talks a good story but out of the public gaze is doing something else entirely.
"It's essential we continue this good work."
Well if as you believe that then please enlighten us as to a scientific case for which so convinced you.
"As for AR2048, time to upfate your information, as usual barking up the wrong tree."
As I've said you really owe it to yourself to know what is really going on so please visit the 'Diaries' and 'Save the Primates' sites given above....after all, this is being done in Your name and government should not be deceiving the public.
AR2048, says...
9:53pm Sat 14 Feb 09
We have been experimenting on other species for around 2000 years - where are the cures for the human ailments you was referring to?
Do you support killing some humans for the intended medical benefit of other humans? That IS what is happening with animal experiments, in the US alone each year around 100,000 humans are killed by adverse reactions to medicines.
I'm sure you want safe and effective treatments and cures for humans...so do I, that is why I want scientific, human-relevant research and tailored medicines...if you genuinely want medical progress for humans then you should be supporting us.
AR2048, says...
10:41pm Sat 14 Feb 09
Hmmmm....I wonder if you are trying to fool yourself or trying to fool other people -
luckily people can see for themselves by reading the report and watching the video -
an ADI/NAVS undercover investigator worked as an animal technician inside the notorious Huntingdon Life Sciences (UK) for a year until Summer 2008.
The ADI/NAVS report and video was presented to MEPs on 4 February 2009.
www.savetheprimates.
com
beetle & wedge, Chippy says...
9:28am Sun 15 Feb 09
Not Auntie Vera I think and not butch girl so AR/AT must be the spotty faced blobby chappy on welfare with, clearly, nothing else to do. You don't seem to have changed anyone's view, AT: have to blow them up instead I spose
AR2048, says...
6:36pm Sun 15 Feb 09
Absolutey typical of those for vivisection - no ratational arguments to deny Rights to animals and no scientific arguments for vivisection...
so you have to resort to illogical personal attacks....
Pro-test have trained you well :)
For those who are Genuinely against violence - rather than being for violence as long as they don't care about the victims - and against randomly killing some humans for the intended medical benefit of other humans see
www.safermedicines.n
et
tanchris, oxford says...
6:57pm Sun 15 Feb 09
BigAlan, Eynsham says...
7:07pm Sun 15 Feb 09
Hmmmm....I wonder if you are trying to fool yourself or trying to fool other people -
I consider myself neither a fool or a conman, some say i am an educated person who can think rationally and for himself, and with this in mind I have listened to your reason and discussions here and still come to the conclusion you are out of date with your logic.
Look at the many ways in which simple testing on animals has benefited human kind, far to many to list here but you knew this all along. I like you will repeat myself, all the animals used are bred by the University and kept in fantastic conditions, nothing is purchased from outside, no cats or dogs are used and certanily no animal is used unless its the only way forward, the current home office licencing sees to this.
Research on many neurological problems are in advanced stages, would you like all testing to stop which would leave people with Parkinsons for example with no hope for the future? Have you ever been in receipt of help from doctors which involved some sort of research? Possibly every one of us has.
Just this week Mr Broughton has been jailed for a second time for actions against innocent people, if this is the public face of the people who disagree with testing then they have let themselves down badly. Legal protest is fine, but when your lot (ALF included) resort to violence and law breaking then they are nothing more than a terrorists.
I have read the rubbish on the Speak site (out of date) I have read and watched video's until I am blue in the face, nothing you say or demonstrate has changed my mind, Animal testing under the current rules is a good thing and must be supported in all cases.
AR2048, says...
9:14pm Sun 15 Feb 09
The reason I said "I wonder if you are trying to fool yourself or trying to fool other people" is because you said you had watched the ADI/NAVS video and that it is "so old it makes Laurel and Hardy look new, please gather up to date information and methods before making such stupid statements.".
However, as I've said, an ADI/NAVS undercover investigator worked as an animal technician inside the notorious Huntingdon Life Sciences (UK) for a year until Summer 2008 - so far, far from being 'out of date' it is extremely recent.
Further, the 'Diaries of Despair' report covered pig-to-primate organ transplants inside the notorious Huntingdon Life Sciences during the period 1994 to 2000...
and of course the public was told then that 'strict and rigorous' regulations were in place...but actually they are simply not being enforced as shown by the fact government did NOTHING and has ceaselessy tried to cover-up re eg over 500 breaches of GLP and the ILLEGAL experiments on primates.
I therefore gave the links to the 'Diaries' report and the ADI/NAVS report and video so people can see which of us was giving them correct information.
AR2048, says...
10:58pm Sun 15 Feb 09
"Look at the many ways in which simple testing on animals has benefited human kind, far to many to list here but you knew this all along."
No I don't accept that, it is advances in technology and human experience that advances have been made. No-one is denying that experiments on other species have been carried out....we've been doing it for around 2000 years, hey where are the cures??....however, x doing y does not of itself prove outcome z....we would need to know the causal, rather than casual, link....
for example, someone could say 'researchers (x)wore clothes (y) therefore wearing clothes is vital to medical progress (outcome z).
Of course though that is not good enough and to support their claim they would need to show a causal link between y and z.
That is what I'm asking for re your claim, I've explained why experiments on other species are not valid for humans, you disagree so I'm asking you to explain the causal link which would support your claim....without which your claims are nothing more that unsupported statements.
"all the animals used are bred by the University and kept in fantastic conditions, nothing is purchased from outside, no cats or dogs are used"
'Fantastic conditions'?! I'm entirely sure that if you was similarly imprisoned in a small cage all your time alive and experimented upon you wouldn't think 'hey, fantastic conditions here'.
"and certanily no animal is used unless its the only way forward, the current home office licencing sees to this."
The 'Diaries' exposé and BUAV legal actions against government clearly show Home Office licencing is a rubber-stamping exercise.
"Research on many neurological problems are in advanced stages, would you like all testing to stop which would leave people with Parkinsons for example with no hope for the future?"
Two points re this - 1) if, as you claim, the animals are so similar to humans that such research is valid for humans...will you tell us how, then, you can justify experimenting on them?
2) There are scientific, human-relevant methods, see report, video and the site
www.safermedicines.n
et
You present an entirely false 'animal experiments or nothing at all ever' scenario...in fact the choice is invalid, dangerously misleading experiments on other species or scientific, human-relevant methods.
"Have you ever been in receipt of help from doctors which involved some sort of research? Possibly every one of us has."
Including those humans harmed and killed by 'animal tested' drugs - including the Parkinson's patients made worse by an 'animal tested' treatment, thalidomide victims, and of course those in the TGN1412 trial to mention but a tiny few ...what about them, don't they matter? Are those humans just as disposable to you as are the animals?
"Just this week Mr Broughton has been jailed for a second time for actions against innocent people"
I expect he will appeal given the 'evidence'...and remember a previous failed trial when it transpired that Thames Valley Police had accidently recorded themselves talking about waging a dirty war against him, saying protesters don't realise how powerful Oxford University is and that it has Masons, of 'the need to persecute him', and about inciting an incident.
"Legal protest is fine"
Until it becomes effective then it is made illegal.
"but when your lot (ALF included) resort to violence"
What though of the original, and far, far greater, in fact extreme and lethal violence being perpetrated against innocent and defenceless animals in labs? Why don't you condemn that violence?
"and law breaking then they are nothing more than a terrorists."
What about those perpetrating the original, far, far greater extreme and lethal violence - they must be 'terrorists' too then.
"I have read the rubbish on the Speak site (out of date) I have read and watched video's until I am blue in the face, nothing you say or demonstrate has changed my mind, Animal testing under the current rules is a good thing and must be supported in all cases."
Well you said the ADI/NAVS video was decades old and out of date when in fact the undercover investigation was very, very recent.
As for not changing your mind, well you haven't yet disputed with hard facts my points re species' differences, and you haven't provided any explanation as to any causal link....so I wonder upon what your belief is based, blind faith apparently.
That is a terrible shame because as doctors do know 'every prescription is a clinical trial' - humans are being randomly harmed and killed by 'animal-tested' drugs...I wonder why you are not concerned about those humans and their families.
Anyone who is concerned about them needs to support those against vivisection.
AR2048, says...
11:04pm Sun 15 Feb 09
So, you think babies, the severely brain-damaged, severely mentally ill etc shouldn't have Rights? How very extreme.
thekraut, says...
2:49pm Mon 16 Feb 09
7:08am Sat 14 Feb 09
"There are 2 separate things here AR 2048 (are you named after the German WW2 Arado aircraft?)"
beetle & wedge: please leave the poor Germans alone! They're not responsible for everything! The Arado AR 234
en.wikipedia.org/wik
i/Arado_Ar_234 never made it into a combat role over British skies (apparently).
But I must say Germans do prefer animal testing: medical testing on humans has slightly negative overtones in Germany ever since Adolf the Austrian introduced it in greater scale between 1933-1945 in concentration camps...
AR2048, says...
5:59pm Mon 16 Feb 09
In the US alone each year around 100,000 humans are killed by adverse reactions to 'animal tested' drugs.
I don't understand why those who are supporting vivisection don't care about those humans or their families.
tanchris, oxford says...
10:56pm Mon 16 Feb 09
AR2048 wrote:if we took responsibilityfor our own actions we wouldnt need "human rights".Just a screen for Twats to hide behind.
tanchris says..."...if we had a "human responsibilites" ethos then idiots like Broughton wouldn't get supporters who promote his cause!" So, you think babies, the severely brain-damaged, severely mentally ill etc shouldn't have Rights? How very extreme.
AR2048, says...
12:54am Tue 17 Feb 09
There's no way to make every single person take responsibility for their own actions though - the fact is that some people are just greedly, selfish, callous, corrupted, evil even....and people in power usually have their own agenda including keeping themselves in power.
This is why Human Rights are essential, they are all we have to protect us from the State, from those in power.
watcher2, england says...
2:53pm Wed 18 Feb 09
But never changed a mind...such is the life of an ARE I guess.
Broughton's a thug and a blackmailer. 10 yrs is too little, but, hey, never mind. Unlucky 13, eh Mel?
AR2048, says...
5:48pm Wed 18 Feb 09
Lol - well you certainly demonstrate the lack of capacity for objectivity that perpetuates the nonsense of vivisection...
and the usual need of those for vivisection to resort to irrational personal attacks due to the lack of any intelligent counter-argument :)
"Broughton's a thug and a blackmailer."
Hmmmm....anyone who supports vivisection supports systematically harming and killing millions upon millions of innocent and defenceless sentient individuals in labs...
and, therefore, randomly killing some humans for the intended benefit of other humans - because that IS what is happening with vivisection.
So, anyone who supports vivisection should take a long hard look at themselves before criticising others.
Your sayYour Oxford
Add your comment
Register for a FREE Oxford Mail account and you can have your say on today's news and sport by adding comments on articles we publish. The best comments may even get published in the paper.
Please register now or sign in below to continue.
Guilty: Mel Broughton
Local Advertisers
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
jamiek, cumnor says...
3:06pm Fri 13 Feb 09