Thursday, August 19, 2010

A Lemur overreaches

Your necessity to resort to insult so quickly is disappointing but no worry. No Insult Lemur - SHACWATCH was exposing your underlying aims

I think all I will learn from future trials of SHAC activists is that the Government of the time was eager to show the industry that its opponents would be harshly dealt with. I think this is why, even if what these people did could be described as blackmail, it was certainly not the most serious form of this crime but sentences near the maximum were given.
Ah yes - it's all great big conspiracy and the Judge, the jury and everybody was in on it
More, in fact, than those involved in more straightforwardly criminal blackmail cases involving abduction with demands for money have received.
Possibly because of the number of victims and the physical and mental impact ? Or could it be the disgusting nature of some of the attacks - paedophile letters, sanitary towels!
I suspect that, given this perception, SHAC activists on trial must be tempted to plead guilty to reduce such draconian sentences.
Didn't work did it!
What do you think about the unique imposition of indefinite ASBOs for Heather, Gregg & Natasha preventing them from ever expressing their views about vivisection?
Good point - as was revealed during the trail SHAC cloaked their illegal activities with a false veneer of 'lawful protest' - the ASBO's demonstrate that the 'right' to lawful protest isn't absolute and can be withdrawn if abused - and the appeal court agreed!

This is the crux of what SHACWATCH continues to expose - SHAC is a lie - it isn't and has never been lawful - as such all that can be done is jail it! This point has been recognised by two of the second trail SHAC conspirators and they have admitted their guilt - the rest must take their chances!

Until all are caged


Anonymous said...

I always enjoy it when a SHAC supporter comes to the SHACWATCH site. We don't need to expose their stupidity, they do it so well whenever they post.

Never mind SHAC is nearly dead now

Pro-Test said...

A little bit of help here for "A Lemur"

The public debate on animal research sometimes gets so heated that the facts can be overlooked. How many animals are used in research every year? Do people know that most of them are mice or rats? Why are animals genetically modified? How is animal research regulated? How are the animals cared for? What actually happens to research animals? How does the use of animals in research and testing compare with other uses of animals by society?

I will answer all these questions for our fury Lemur.

Animals are essential in scientific research, medicines development and safety testing. They are necessary to understand the body in health and disease, and to develop new and improved medical treatments. But their use is not undertaken lightly. Both the potential scientific and medical benefits of the research, and the possible suffering of the animals used, are weighed up carefully before any animal research project can proceed.

No-one wants to use animals in research, and no one would use them unnecessarily. Animal research is considered a last resort, to be used only when there is no alternative method. In the UK, strict regulations and a licensing system mean that animals must be looked after properly and may not be used if there is any other way of doing a piece of research.

Non-animal methods are used for the majority of biomedical research. So animal studies are used alongside these other types of research. Such ‘alternative' methods include the study of cells and tissues grown in the laboratory, computer-modelled systems, and human patients, volunteers or populations.

This weblink below will put the research processes in context, explain when animals need to be used and how they are used. Feel free to browse the rest of the site to improve your general knowledge of this issue

Don't be fooled by the SHAC lies - education always beats AR bullshit

thelemur said...

Oh dear, now you add aggression and premature triumphalism to your insults - no wonder you come over as such a bitter bunny.
My only aim has been to try to point out to you that it is possible for people to have opposing views and still be able to discuss these without assuming that one’s opponent is either a villain or a fool - but it doesn’t seem that I’m getting through to you.
I still think you were wrong when you said Heather was not a founder member of SHAC as she, Natasha and Gregg jointly set it up in, I believe, 1999. Not that I had any knowledge of them at that time; I was only involved when I read about what I considered to be inordinately high sentences.
You are mistaken when you infer that I’m a conspiracy theorist; I assume all it takes is a judge to agree with the government’s desire to protect private corporations against dissent and to direct the jury accordingly. I think the punishments were out of proportion and smacked of political interference especially as these distressing acts you mention had only tenuous links to the defendants. Heather, for example, who was not accused of intimidating anyone, will spend more time in jail than some convicted of serious assaults or sexual crimes.
You are, of course, mistaken again when you say that pleading guilty does not decrease the sentence as, in fact, it reduces it by a third. Small wonder that some of these activists try to diminish their time in prison - it doesn’t mean that they think what they were doing was wrong.


Lemur - Heather said in court, under oath that she wasn't a founder of SHAC - she said the other two (who had already pleaded guilty) were. Now as an upstanding AR activist she wouldn't lie would she?
You are correct when you say you have no knowledge of SHAC, having only read about SHAC in, what we can only assume to be activist press - we urge you to read more widely before you further expose your ignorance.

Anonymous said...

I agree Lemur. An opposing view does not make someone the enemy!