Friday, March 20, 2009

London Indymedia take a stand


"Re London Indymedia blocking SHAC.

This has been an issue that the majority of the London Indymedia moderators have been talking about for some time in private but it has now come out into the open. The famous SHAC / Indymedia cross poster Lynn Sawyer has been red in the face with rage trying to get this policy changed but her strident emails have had the opposite effect, indeed one London administrator stated in an email to others,

"I'm begining to understand what it must be like to be an executive with an HLS supplier, the SHAC people just bombard you with their demands and then issue threats when you don't agree with them. I have to say I find it very unpleasant. I am inclined to always resist this type of tactic as a matter of principle" "

Great news - the world needs to hear less of Loony Lyn. Except, the appology she owes all thsoe she has decived over the years.

Until ALL are caged.


Yoss said...

The background to this decision is evidence itself of the disgusting depths SHAC will go to in pursuit of its aims.

In this case it was the threat of sexual violence against a young women whose only link to animal testing was that she was the daughter of a person whose company is a supplier to Huntingdon Life Sciences. Indeed some SHAC people even admitted they had already visited the women and wanted to brag about it on Indymedia via a special feature,

"To give you a little preview of what may happen to people close to you we paid a visit to your daughter XXXXX-XXXXXX XXXXX living at Flat 3,
XXXXXX Place, London.


Not surprisingly the London Indymedia editors recognised this was a step too far and have pulled SHAC content from the site and set up a filter to block future posts. What is shocking is how some have been critical of London Indymedia for doing this, people who think that threats of sexual violence toward an women who has no link in any way to animal testing are an acceptable form of action.

Medawar said...

I know that SHAC "disowned" the convicted paedophile Robert Moaby some years ago, but the terms of this threat, and the clear implication of sexual violence, sound very much like he's back in the game.

One doesn't want Shacwatch to merge with Noncewatch, but that's up to SHAC, really.

Anonymous said...

Even though Ms Saywer will not admit it, SHAC has had a rocky past with other campaign members because of their own underhand methods of gossip in order to shut down other anti-vivisection campaigns that take campaigners away from the SHAC cause. The Covance campaign is a classic example of their "shut down" tactics. This campaign was just too big and needed to be shut down so to add more support to SHACs campaign. It's no secret what went on, well not to them in the mix. I would go as far as to say that the only reason Heather was tolerated by Greg and co was because she was popular and good for the campaign because of the amount of people she attracted to it. You only have to spend some time with Greg Avery to see how much of an ego problem he has!

You have to realise that SHAC is not the AR movement and is just a small blot on what is a very large picture. The movement can do better without campaigns like SHAC and the likes of the Averys. They have achieved nothing other than set back the AR movement.

In the wake of SHAC and the Averys is alot of broken people who they have stamped on in the past.