Saturday, May 21, 2011

Mel admits defeat

Mel Broughton - former SHAC insider before he shagged the wrong woman again has thrown in the towel, in his latest letter from prison he says:-

So what’s to be done? Well, for a start we have to recognise that some of the campaigns that we pursue are a dead end.

Who can he mean? SHACWATCH knows the answer - pity it took him so long to come his senses!


former SHAC supporter. said...

I wouldn't trust anything that Mel says, unlike those who are in SHAC for the money and lifestyle it funds Mel is something different, he's a true believer and is very, very dangerous. Where most SHAC 'actions' consist of little more than banner waving and shouting through megaphones at office blocks Mel was determined to set off bombs to prevent medical research. Mel knows very well that SPEAK and SHAC have both failed and that his answer to that will be more violence.
When he gets out of prison I think it's likely lives will be at risk.

Medawar said...

That's quite likely.

John Curtin has already manipulated one poor sap into killing someone for his cause.

Ronnie Lee, too, has repeatedly expressed his disappointment that the movement has not been more violent.

meathead said...

@medawar. I take it you are talking about the gyrocopter? John Curtin is a nutter but the dude ran into the back of the copter so it was his own fault really. That guy got acquitted of manslaughter so that says it all really.

Lynn Sawyers vodka supplier said...

SHAC's useful idiots like Lynn always try to push the story about SHAC being a "legal non violent campaign" but in fact violence has always been just beneath the surface with a number of individuals in jail exactly because of their violent acts.

The failure of conventional campaigning tactics (largly because people got pissed off with how the money was spent) leave the rag tag hardcore that's left of SHAC with difficult choices. Violence always puts off the more middle of the road supporter (old ladies who like puppies, easily influenced schoolgirls etc) which leads to a reduction in income. The same income that is paying for the lifestyles of a number of the central SHAC leadership however with SHAC viewed by AR activists as a failed campaign anyway then income will fall regardless.

It will be interesting to see if they make a move to violent acts with a couple of 'disposable individuals' used to try and reinvigorate the campaign.

meathead said...

@lynn sawyer's vodka supplier.

"The failure of conventional campaigning tactics (largly because people got pissed off with how the money was spent)" That doesn't make any sense, the failure of tactics has nothing to do with how the money is spent. Of course shac kept violence behind the scenes and claimed it was only doing legal things. That is just common sense. That none of the ALF attacks are happening anymore is why the campaign has totally failed.

Former SHAC supporter said...

"'disposable individuals' " as 'Lynn Sawyers Vodka Supplier' puts it is a very apt description and one that should serve as a warning to younger people becoming involved with SHAC. A number of individuals have been used and discarded when they have served their purpose with a number of them now sitting in jail wondering how their lives got screwed over while some individuals sit in comfortable French houses "writing books about the struggle".

Medawar said...

He was acquitted because "Couldn't Prosecute Satan" decided not to tell the Jury that the person in the back seat egging the pilot on, was a notorious extremist.

You make it sound like a suicide, it was not.

Medawar said...

Or the more deranged extremists will go back to effectively random "HBLF" attacks instead of Shac attacks.

meathead said...

@medawar Who is pissed off with Thomas Bros Excavations? of course crazy Curtin was causing trouble from the back seat but confronting someone in a helicopter is just plain stupid. I would never go anywhere near something with huge spinning blades just because he had been "buzzing" me all day

Medawar said...

There is a self-described "ALF Splinter Group" in Mid Beds. It used to do really bizarre things which even Robin Webb described as mad, such as cutting down a wood to stop pheasants living there who might subsequently be shot.
At least half the time, those involved used to attack the local construction industry whenever a brownfield site was used in preference to a greenfield site; apaprently because they liked to sit in crumbling abandoned buildings, gazing at stars through holes in the roof and smoking whatever they smoked.

During SHAC's heyday, this mostly stopped as they were "helping" there instead, but now SHAC has stopped, the old lunacies have been restarted.

There can be up to twelve of them on some actions, but maybe two who actually plan this stuff. It may be that Robin Webb and other ALF mouthpieces have stopped publishing their claims of responsibility, because the things they do are so completely bonkers that not even the ALF thinks it benefits from being associated with it all.

In one form or another, this goes back to the early eighties. If SHAC is relaunched by a killing or other extreme violence by "disposable individuals" these may be recruited in Mid Beds.

Local farmers and builders are sure that the police have known exactly who is behind this for more than twenty years, yet despite the nationwide crackdown provoked by SHAC and SPEAK, there are never any AR arrests in Mid Beds.

Any tidbits of "intelligence" supplied in return for this forebearance are likely to be highly self-serving and false: a mechanism for pimps and druggies closely associated with the arsonists to dispose of business rivals from Luton and Northampton.

meathead said...

seriously medawar, that rambling would give the fool and his 9/11 conspiracies a run for his money. what are you talking about "If SHAC is relaunched by a killing". Seriously? Shac isn't capable of finding its own arse, let alone tracking down and killing someone .Since gregg and natasha got banged up shac intelligence gathering has been nought.

Medawar said...

Meathead, It isn't a ramble, you asked who hated the firm and why. It is an accurate historical description of a tiny group of very dangerous people whom the police have inexplicably but very consistently ignored.

The leaders of the ALF have been wishing aloud for killings for some years. Paul Richardson was even recorded by ITN calling for Prince William to be killed.

I actually have had personal dealings with a psychopathic murderer and I can assure you that they will really do the sort of thing that others just fantasize about, which is why Ronnie and Jerry keep saying it, from a safe distance.

It isn't just "disposable individuals": SHAC is now a disposable brand.

When the Band of Mercy was in precisely the same sort of place that SHAC is in now, they started burning down labs and farms with the animals inside, "to set them free".

Then Ronnie Lee made the ALF rise, from the ashes of the incinerated sows and piglets.

There are compelling legal reasons why American extremists, like Jerry, need any killings to happen on this side of the pond.

(Any conspiracy to deny someone a basic legal right (particularly using the highway), is a Federal crime, and if someone happens to die, or is abducted, that conspiracy can be a capital crime. So they don't want to incite American activists to kidnap or kill anyone on American soil, do they?)

And there are parts of the security lobby, especially the part that charges by the hour, who would like to see animal rights extremists claim a few kills, too.

It was the growing violence of Canadian AR groups that made Cyril Reitman realize he could invest successfully in Canadian security firms.

meathead said...

man medawar you use a lot of words to say a pretty simple thing: that jerry mouths off about political murders hoping some nut will take notice. big deal, he's been doing that for years and noone has taken any notice, they might do, they might not. "the leaders of the alf" and who would they be exactly? I do hope you're not talking about robin webb, I dont think most people in AR circles have heard from him in about a decade.

Anonymous said...

@medawar "Robin Webb and other ALF mouthpieces have stopped publishing their claims of responsibility"

Errrrm, Robin Webb hasn't published anything for years and the only other "mouthpiece" is biteback and there has never been any suggestions that they censor anything. Nicolas Atwood publishes what he is legally allowed to in the US, which is pretty much anything!

Medawar said...

More words, Meathead, because more's being said than your glib putdown wants to admit.

Webb is relevant because the pheasant-wood incident is about where he decided to bow out.

The danger in trying to scoff at anyone who questions the wisdom of detective protecting lunatics from arrest in return for information, is that if the lunatics do indeed up and kill someone after being protected as police sources, it will make the Mark Kennedy scandal look pretty tame. It won't just be Guardian readers who are angry.

And the obvious precedent, a kidnapper and serial rapist from Arlesey who used his obviously cosy relationship as an informant with Bedfordshire CID to cow his victims into not complaining to the police, (until he kept a victim captive for two weeks and was arrested by Hertfordshire Police) grew up with the exact same lunatics in question.

"They might or they might not" do what Jerry Vlasak and Ronnie Lee repeatedly ask for, could turn out to be memorable last words: do you want them on your headstone?

Are you sure that Atwood publishes everything? Because if you're going to try feeding him a story to see, better have a less obviously untraceable IP than the dogpile user currently diligently trawling the shacwatch archives.

Lastly, SHAC was able to get started in the first place because on the four previous occasions when violent AR activism could have been buried, someone like Meathead, but wearing a much nicer uniform, decided it was all over and they could all go home.

The tea and medals stage is within sight, but you are not there yet.

meathead said...

Medawar, I have got much better things to be doing than feeding Atwood fake stories, in fact I have got much better things to be doing than posting on this website... but anyway. He posts some crazy stuff on there sometimes so it's pretty likely that he doesn't censor and there has never been any suggestion that he does. Also, maybe my "they might kill someone they might not" statement was a little glib but you have gone too far the other way. A bunch of nutters who cut down a few trees to stop pheasants getting shot is a far cry from murder but if you want to give the nuts in Bedfordshire credit for being anything more than a bunch of annoying cranks who have really not done much then that is up to you (this is the time when you trot out some arson that has no provable links to anything AR)

Medawar said...

I think it's pretty clear from what I've said before, that about half of what these people do, and have always done, is indeed nothing to do with AR.

The police know about them, they make no arrests. This may mean nothing to meathead, but it fits a pattern observed by many shacwatchers elsewhere, such as in Evesham. It is a policy that invites disaster, because not all informers are benign.

Arsonists are always arsonists first and anything else second. That is why American AR activists like Rodney Coronado employ such a broad definition of "AR" that they can justify setting fire to almost anything on almost any pretext.

If the mainstream AR movement designates research charities as the next campaign target, the arsonists will start torching charity shops (again), not because it's the movement's strategy, but because arson is what they do and it's the only contribution they can make.

meathead said...

@medawar. The point i was trying to make is that if you pick out an arson story where noone has been arrested for it you could blame it on anyone. Personally I think it is the anti-monarchists, don't ask me why or I will have to make up some nonsense to substantiate my ramblings.