Sunday, September 20, 2009

SHAC fly more false flags

Embarrassed by their own, discredited name, SHAC have been using a number of others recently.
Militant forces against HLS - Animal Rights Militia etc.

Why bother SHAC? - it didn't work at your trial where it was accepted that you are the ALF - it won't make any difference now.

You will be caught, tried and sent to jail - just like all the others - do we really have to list them?

Greg,Heather,Natasha,Dan W,Dan A, Gerah, Gavin, Sarah, Mel etc

Not to forget Alfie, Tom, Nikki and the rest of the B team.

In the words of John Wayne - SHAC really has to know it's limitations!


Medawar said...

How far away are we from hearing the welcome slam of steel doors?

Anonymous said...

"SHACWATCH"??? I can't believe this actually exists!!
How could anyone be so cold-hearted and evil that they try to protect what is happening at HLS??
Why doesn't the person who's running this poison themselves to death and see how they like it? That's what you're trying to protect you scum!
HLS will be destroyed and vivisection will be stopped. There's no more room on Earth for disgusting wastes of space like you any more so why don't you just give up and admit that you're wrong.
Smash HLS.


Thank you - you effectively illustrate the deranged and fascist attitude that SHACWATCH exists to expose and debunk.

Medawar said...

FBI "profilers" generally hold that poisoners are the worst kind of psychotics, because they are so arrogant that they believe that their victims secretly know that they deserve to die and that the poisoner is right to kill them. In truth, their victims are often random, and generally have no conception of why they were attacked, because it's all something buzzing inside the poisoner's head.

"Anonymous" in this instance is one of these people, and is probably very, very dangerous. Not to "animal abusers" but to virtually anyone, because the mindset displayed here could justify any level of harm, to anyone.

Before Kenneth Baker and co invented to financially convenient "care in the community" this used to be known as "madness" and they would be put somewhere safe.

Lesley Dove said...

Oh silly me, I always thought vivisectors were the worst kind of psychotics, because they are so deluded that they even refuse to believe that their victims have any feelings.
I am proud to support SHAC and all that they stand for, animal liberation.
You who have no empathy for your fellow sentient earthlings, you are the ones who are deranged and fascist.


Ms Dove,
thanks for coming out from the shadows.
I refer you to the words of Gerrah Selby, screamed through a megaphone at a woman who worked in an office;
" you won't be laughing when your children are crying in the night"

I detect little empathy there - now go away and re-examine your values.

Lesley Dove said...

I don't think I was ever in the shadows, it is you who are hiding "in the shadows", too cowardly to reveal your identity I think, even though the vast majority of the animal rights movement is non-violent! I have no idea what Gerrah Selby said, but I am not aware of any SHAC people upsetting children, nor would I condone this. I do not need to reexamine my values, I am not the one supporting torture and killing of sentient beings.

Anonymous said...

" ... your fellow sentient earthlings..."

The British philosopher Roger Scruton has shown that rights imply obligations. Every legal privilege, he writes, imposes a burden on the one who does not possess that privilege: that is, "your right may be my duty." Scruton therefore regards the emergence of the animal rights movement as "the strangest cultural shift within the liberal worldview," because the idea of rights and responsibilities are, he argues, distinctive to the human condition, and it makes no sense to spread them beyond our own species.
He accuses animal rights advocates of "pre-scientific" anthropomorphism, attributing traits to animals that are, he says, Beatrix Potter-like, where "only man is vile." It is within this fiction that the appeal of animal rights lies, he argues. The world of animals is non-judgmental, filled with dogs who return our affection almost no matter what we do to them, and cats who pretend to be affectionate when, in fact, they care only about themselves. It is, he argues, a fantasy, a world of escape.


Ms Dove,
you really don't know when to stop digging do you?
I note your public confession that you support SHAC but are ignorant of what they themselves have confessed to doing!
SHACWATCH isn't about animals or HLS it's about twisted individuals who torment other human beings because of their own, incorrect, view of the world.
I urge you to read some of the other posts on here about the SHAC activists imprisoned for their vile acts - are these really people you are happy to associate with? What does that say about you?

Medawar said...

Perhaps Ms Dove will (non-violently) put the monkeys straight:

One time member of SHAC said...

Lesley Dove said...
... even though the vast majority of the animal rights movement is non-violent...


Is this moron aware of the history of SHAC, it's attacks are well documented, strech back years and some individuals are serving jail time for them. If this is the intellectual standard of the average SHAC person it is no wonder they are falling apart.

I left SHAC for this very reason the indiscriminate use of violence as a tactic. I know work with an animal rescue organisation that is focused on animal help not ego and wallet building.