former SHAC member said...
If SHACWATCH documented every case of fraud and theft of donations that have been linked to SHAC there would be very little else on the site !
The use of SHAC fund raisng to fund the lifestyles of various members is now so well known it's hardly worth talking about. Adrian Radford has talked about what Natasha Avery spent donations on. Trevor Holmes was well known for his "expenses". Even Virginia Steele has asked about what her money was being spent on.
At one stage each SHAC street stall was generating around £200 a day after costs (this has dropped to about £30 now and there are far less stalls) with some insiders estimating that about 50% of this went directly to supporting the lifestles of Greg, Natasha and Heather.
The good news is that animal rights supporters are much more clued up these days and spend their money where it weill help animals not fund Greg's holidays.
Thanks for the reminder SHACWATCHER
7 comments:
£30? Last street stall I did raised £500
You will find that most people who offer donations are happy in the knowledge that it will be put to good use ;)
Yes - thats what was said at the end of the SHAC trial and the reason that stalls were eradicated in the West End.
See what you raise now!
"... are happy in the knowledge that it will be put to good use ..."
Uses such as holidays, hire cars, spa weekends, Mont Blanc pens that sort of thing ?
I appreciate you started out thinking the money was being used to help animals, I did as well but the truth has been revealed in both court cases and on a number of blogs. If you want to help animals there are many other better ways of doing it. SHAC is totaly discredited in the AR world because of this issue if no other.
"... are happy in the knowledge that it will be put to good use ..."
Uses such as holidays, hire cars, spa weekends, Mont Blanc pens that sort of thing ?
I suppose you can verify your claims?
Care to tell us about these holidays etc?
Cheap cars were hired in order to stop bailiffs taking them to pay HLS, common knowledge. Rent for the house was paid for by a supporter. Greg and Natasha used charity shops to purchase clothes hence the crap style and 80s cords.
You miss the point - again. The money is donated by people who think they are helping animals - the money is spent on a failed 'urban terrorist' camapign that has not helped a single animal nor has any realistic prospect of doing so.
This is the SHAC fraud.
"Greg and Natasha used charity shops to purchase clothes"
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
You don't really believe that do you ?
"You don't really believe that do you ?"
As amazing as it would seem there really are peole who still swallow lines like that. Despite the evidence some simply will not believe. I think it's like the 911 nutters or the Moon landing crowd, if you provide them evidence they just call you part of the problem.
Post a Comment