At the recent planning meeting for next years animal rights gatherings that took place at the One in Twelve Club in Bradford, several activists got together to discuss Luke Steele.It was suggested by one respected member of the animal rights movement that Steele had become a "mini Greg", but without any intelligence.
They tried, but failed to come up with a plan to stop Steele from bringing the animal rights movement into further disrepute.
The majority of his fellow activists are dismayed by his always wanting to be the center of attention, his drunken and loutish behavior and his nastiness to any of his comrades who happen to disagree with him.
What ever will they do to solve the Luke Steele problem?
Subject: [Sulis] shacwatch
From: "L SAWYER"
Date: Fri, November 19, 2010
To:
I know that we quite rightly don't disuss this shitty site but they have now printed an email from sulis from May. Thought you should all know.
--
Subject: Re: [Sulis] shacwatch
From: "maz"
Date: Sat, November 20, 2010
To: sulis@lists.rbgi.net
shit how the fuck did they get that???????????????
MAZ
--
Subject: RE: [Sulis] shacwatch
From: "k Blackshaw"
Date: Sat, November 20, 2010
To: sulis@lists.rbgi.net
The police are well aware of the existence of Sulis. I know that Gavin Medd-Hall’s computer was taken by them and postings from Sulis was found on it. I presume the same for Mel. Anyway, we have always been told that we should bear in mind when posting anything that it will be monitored by the powers that be.
Personally, I have been concerned for some time that occasionally people have been nominated for the List by members who do not really know them all that well. Perhaps the criteria for nomination should be tightened?
--
November 23, 2010 1:53 PM
--
Subject: Re: [Sulis] shacwatch
From: "Steve"
Date: Sat, November 20, 2010
To: sulis@lists.rbgi.net
I see three possibilities.
(1) A member of Shacwatch is on the Sulis (not very likely, if this were the case I think Shacwatch would not be able to resist putting more from the list on their website).
(2) A member of the Sulis has felt so disgruntled that they have passed the email on to Shacwatch.
(3) The police monitor the Sulis and passed the email on (not likely as surely the police would not risk letting it being known they monitor the list).
Of course I could be wrong on all counts. I am sure people who have more expertise in online security will have other answers.
Steve
--
Subject: RE: [Sulis] shacwatch
From: "L SAWYER"
Date: Sat, November 20, 2010
To: sulis@lists.rbgi.net
Another explaination. The police are involved in shacwatch themselves. We know that they post on Indy and just look at the language used in the Fitwatch post why would vivisectors care about students getting arrested or not? I am convinced that the police are involved as either individuals doing something that will get them into deep shit or doing it with the blessing of high ranking officers to which purpose I know not, I just know that I cannot proove who or what is involved
--
November 23, 2010 1:54 PM
--
Subject: RE: [Sulis] shacwatch
From: "Jo Jo"
Date: Sat, November 20, 2010
To: sulis@lists.rbgi.net
Shouldn't we just assume that despite security measures there are undercover coppers on this list anyway, or at the very least they read all the emails?? Not that it really matters, as there is nothing illegal about the list or anything anyone is saying on it, as I'm sure everyone is aware. Although, maybe something to bear in mind when airing disputes?
Jo
--
Subject: Re: [Sulis] shacwatch
From: "Luke Steele"
Date: Sat, November 20, 2010
To: sulis@lists.rbgi.net
No offense to anybody, but why are we even discussing this waste of time.
SHACWatch is a complete joke, we should not even be giving them our attention and diverting away from the subject which is the animals we are trying to save. It is clearly run by the police, as lots of evidence suggests, so it is no wonder they have access to our emails.
People are only as oppressed as we allow ourselves to be, and the AR movement is far from oppressed at the moment. We see people doing what we as a movement have always done and, even if it were illegal, the police don't have the resources to deal with the movement's growth over the past several months and return to actions such as run ins, sit down protests, lock-ons, rooftop occupations etc and the latest trial is nothing short of an embarrassment and joke.
Would movements of the past have cared if the police had made a sneery comment about them, or taken a photo? I doubt it, so we should not be distracted from our real objectives and aims by these sad acts.
--
November 23, 2010 1:56 PM
--
Subject: Re: [Sulis] shacwatch
From: "L SAWYER"
Date: Sat, November 20, 2010
To: sulis@lists.rbgi.net
Sorry Luke I disagree. People needed to know this so I posted it just press delete if you think it is a waste of time that's what I do for all sorts of things.Many activists are unaware of how the police are conducting themselves so I think we will just have to agree to differ on this one . Personally I wanted to ensure that people on this list were fully aware that what is put on here is not only watched by the cops but has now for the first time been posted in the public domain. Of course if everyone knew about it anyway and I have stopped people from going on demos and actions with this then of course I apologise but doubt very much that imparting this information has stopped anyone doing stuff.
I will make my own decisions about whether or not I feel reopressed by the state and right now I am not ashamed to admit that I am as are those who do not attend demos or do anything because they are frightened, it is an issue which is seen as a signifiant problem and whilst your courage and energy is astounding there are not many activists of your calibre. Indulge those of us who do wish to discuss repression and work ways around it with a little tolerance please although you are right in that it should not distract us. SW is something that in itself should not be bothered with other than something to have a laugh at normally but in this instance someone has published a private email and one from May at that, not everyone reads SW or is even aware of it so I fail to see why passing this on so that we can be a bit more careful is a major issue.
Anyway rant over I will shut up now and I love you really Luke.
--
November 23, 2010 1:59 PM
--
Subject: Re: [Sulis] shacwatch
From: "Paul"
Date: Sun, November 21, 2010
To: sulis@lists.rbgi.net
I would recommend people not visit this site as they may have something
on it to identify your IP address. Looks like it does have Google
Analytics on it, which I think tells them who has visited.
other possibilities:
* someone has a weak password for their webmail and someone hacked into it
* someone sent a virus to someone on the list and now has a backdoor in
their computer
* someone forwarded on a sulis email to someone not on the list, who
forwarded it to other people, who forwarded it to other people, etc.