Wednesday, July 13, 2011

SHAC effectiveness - the truth

From the Guardian:-

More than 3.7m scientific procedures were carried out using animals in 2010, an increase of around 100,000 on the previous year, according to data released by the Home Office. The rise is largely due to the production of more genetically modified mice and greater use of fish in basic biological and medical research.

Now as been said before SHACWATCH is neither pro nor anti vivisection - that is a different argument. SHACWATCH is anti SHAC.

The reason we highlight this news from todays Guardian is to debunk all the cant that SHAC and others continue to spew regarding how effective their campaign has been - it has been very effective in achieving lengthy prison sentences - it has had no effect at all on vivisection!

Well done SHAC prisoners - you sacrifice your liberty for nothing.


Anonymous said...

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?

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.

It is good to know that terrorist groups like SHAC and PETA and now in decline with individuals realising the lies they have been told.

meathead said...

@anonymous. you say that "The public debate on animal research sometimes gets so heated that the facts can be overlooked". You are guilty of gross hypocrisy and blatant stupidity. I suppose PETA are the new animal incarnation of the IRA are they? Please do outline their terrorist activities because I'm being fooled by their "I'm not a nugget" campaign which must be a front for car bombings and assassinations!

Medawar said...

It's especially nice to know that Greg Avery is still in jail, despite the apparent belief of some posters here that 2001 was a sort of golden age of SHAC effectiveness, with Greg Avery, David Blenkinsop and Robert Moaby as heroes of the revolution.

meathead said...

@medawar. That comment is clearly directed at me. Do you dispute the view that if the government hadn't stepped in to provide insurance and banking services in 2001 HLS would have gone out of business? SHAC are nutters but that does not change the fact that at one time their tactics were indeed effective.

Anonymous said...


Spend five minutes on the internet to see the depth of PETA and SHAC's support for terrorist activity or if you can't do that consider the comments of the highly respected Southern Poverty Law Centre who described SHAC as "frankly terroristic tactics similar to those of anti-abortion extremists" or in 2005 an official with the FBI's counterterrorism division referred to SHAC's activities in the United States as domestic terrorist threats.

I trust this helps you to understand why they are considered terrorist.

Mike said...

Another year, another claim that HLS are closing

From Indymedia 2011
Together, we can and WILL close HLS"

From Indymedia 2010
"Nicci, Alfie and JJ all pleaded guilty to 145 SOCPA but they have the satisfaction of knowing that HLS is very, very close to closure.

From Indymedia 2009

"This week, activists were greeted with the great news that BDO were perminantly pulling out of deals with the Huntingdon contract. Fortress then did the same leaving HLS with the massive weight over their heads of how will they pay back the $30 million when they don't have it to give back. Simple fact is it looks like the bailiffs will be paying a visit to Huntingdon!"

From Indymedia 2008

"Anti-HLS campaigners this week have gained another major victory in closing down Europe's largest and most exposed vivisection laboratory Huntingdon Life Sciences"

From Indymedia 2007

"Huntingdon Life Sciences are on the ropes and are likely to close before the end of the year if we keep up the pressure."

From Indymedia 2006
"Huntingdon Life Sciences will not see out the year after a fantastic campign by us."

From Indymedia 2005
"Huntingdon Life Sciences need one more push from us and they will be gone in months"

Anonymous said...

Meathead is beginning to come across as something of an AR troll.


Yes - clearly some sort of troll but there is no need to edit him as his comments make our arguments for us.

meathead (Mr Troll) said...

troll eh, seeing as I repeatedly denounce SHAC and you state that your site is neutral on the issue of vivisection then I don't really see what the problem is? Anyway @anonymous don't put SHAC and Peta in the same group, that is just silly. Peta do not blow cars up and burn stuff down, though Ingrid Newkirk does occasionally voice her support for that kind of stuff. I will repeat my argument that intimidation and terrorism are two distinctly different things. SHAC have not even come close to killing someone so, you know, I think people who have been the victim of actual terrorist attacks might find that a bit insulting.

I hope you are enjoying my trolling!



meathead said...


Medawar said...

Since SHAC's methodology was relentlessly violent, destructive and illegal, a sane and responsible government had no choice but to stop SHAC getting its way.

The government we actually had at the time, was probably motivated by the discovery, (by insurers to the security company running Yarl's Wood) that Victorian legislation made police authorities liable for losses incurred by business as the result of any failure by police to keep the peace.

The government had two choices: either help HLS cope with the results of illegal action (and clamp down on the illegality) or have HLS shareholders sue their arses off.

Meanwhile, everything SHAC did in that era, particularly getting a real paedophile to write letters threatening sexual violence against the wives and children of HLS workers, was indeed successful in making the British public realize that it didn't want people like Greg and co to rule the world.

The AR movement as a whole is tainted, because when they thought SHAC might indeed succeed, they certainly did not condemn and in very many cases tacitly approved of the violence and threats of child rape and buggery.

Only since SHAC has been seen to fail, have AR activists been queueing up here to distance themselves from SHAC. That perception seems to date from Robert Moaby's arrest, but there's a hard core who needed a lot more than that to happen before light began to dawn, even though there was ample data on what was really going on.

In fact, the AR movement's relationship with SHAC is a perfect parable of David Cameron's relationship with Andy Coulson.

meathead said...

@medawar. Unfortunately there were still a great many people (many more than you allude to) who supported SHAC for many years after Moaby's arrest. Many AR people have no qualms about the tactics pursued by SHAC and have simply got bored now that it is run by a bunch of money-grabbing nutters. Also I find your claim that SHAC got "a real paedophile to write letters threatening sexual violence against the wives and children of HLS workers" slightly disingenuous. I find it somewhat unlikely that SHAC picked this man because he is a paedophile. Despite being known to be nuts SHAC supporters are not generally known to be paedophiles. In fact it is unlikely that he was chosen at all. What most likely happened was that he went on the SHAC website and he did it of his own volition, without the knowledge but with the approval of the SHAC inner circle. This was how it always worked and was how they tried to keep the illegality at arms length.

Lynn Sawyer's Vodka Supplier said...

It's funny to see people like 'meathead' unable to understand why SHAC and PETA are regarded as terrorist groups. Sometimes people just do not want to see what is right in front of them.
The good news is of course that both groups are in serious decline, PETA is facing some very difficult questions about the number of animals is kills each year and SHAC is little more than 7 key individuals trying to work out how to keep the money coming in.

meathead said...

@lynn sawyer's vodka supplier. I understand very well why they are called terrorists. I am simply saying that there is a clear distinction between intimidation and terrorism. Please tell me who has been killed by SHAC and other similar groups?