Heartland

RicheyJames wrote:

markfiend wrote:Anyone who is the target or subject of even the most well-mannered protest is bound to feel intimidated. So this proposal could effectively outlaw all protest? That can't be good for civil liberties.

now you're being (deliberately?) ridiculous. go back to the original article. we're talking about intimidating people outside their own home. i still can't see why anyone needs target individuals in this way?

RicheyJames wrote:i fully support anyone's right to peaceful protest but there's a time and (more pertinently) a place for protest and i don't believe that that place is on any individual's doorstep.

RicheyJames wrote:

markfiend wrote:As a former hunt saboteur, I'd be quite interested in your opinions of the matter.

as i said, that's a whole new kettle of fish. suffice to say that's an issue where we're really going to disagree....

RicheyJames wrote:

markfiend wrote:As a former hunt saboteur, I'd be quite interested in your opinions of the matter.

as i said, that's a whole new kettle of fish. suffice to say that's an issue where we're really going to disagree....

JB wrote:

markfiend wrote:

JB wrote:Don't think so Mark. Four blokes stand outside your house, legally on the pavement, staring at your and Mrs Fiend in silence, everytime you come and go. Which part of 'intimidating way' are you struggling with?

Let's face it. If you saw one menacing bloke, standing silently outside, staring at your house for 10 mins, you'd feel intimidated.

I see what you mean. But the defence would be "we're only standing here, what's intimidating about that?"

From their perspective maybe but not you and yours. Why else would they be there other than to intimidate? I guess, if the police bothered to respond, they could move them along muttering something about 'suspicion to commit a public order offence' but at the moment there's nothing to stop them coming back which the amended bill will presumably try to address.

lazarus corporation wrote:So why attempt to label hunt saboteurs and animal rights activists as "terrorists" now?

the grauniad wrote:Home Office ministers are also believed to have rejected [my emphasis] suggestions that the most militant animal liberation organisations should be added to the list of banned terrorist organisations.

lazarus corporation wrote: Under the current Public Order Act, they could theoretically be arrested for intimidation, and bail conditions could be set to prevent them returning to within a defined distance of the property. Like I said, the law's already in place. What's the real reason for this new law?

Quiff Boy wrote:oh no., you're one of them are you?

Quiff Boy wrote:the attitudes of a few of the more extreme members put me off.

RicheyJames wrote:so shoot me!

RicheyJames wrote:

lazarus corporation wrote:So why attempt to label hunt saboteurs and animal rights activists as "terrorists" now?

to be fair to tony and his cronies (now there's something i never imagined i'd write) they haven't attempted any such thing. in fact the article actually says:

the grauniad wrote:Home Office ministers are also believed to have rejected [my emphasis] suggestions that the most militant animal liberation organisations should be added to the list of banned terrorist organisations.

i'm starting to wonder if anyone else actually read the bloody thing before they pitched in.

oh, and just for the record, it was little old me who lablled animal rights activists as terrorists in my first post. so shoot me!

RicheyJames wrote:i assume that you're implying that i'm either in some way active in a hunt or at least pro-hunting. i'm neither so you can stop panicking. on the other hand, i'm not a smoker and i'm not pro-smoking but i don't support calls for a ban on smoking either.

JB wrote:

lazarus corporation wrote: Under the current Public Order Act, they could theoretically be arrested for intimidation, and bail conditions could be set to prevent them returning to within a defined distance of the property. Like I said, the law's already in place. What's the real reason for this new law?

You're obviously more knowledgeable than me on law but presumably the above takes time and needs to go through the courts? The new proposed amendment seems to be going down the line of 'move', 'you're back', 'you're nicked'.

cambridge advanced learner's dictionary wrote:terrorism
noun
(threats of) violent action for political purposes

Just a thought: That definition fits pretty well to the USA's recent actions in Iraq, no?

markfiend wrote:

cambridge advanced learner's dictionary wrote:terrorism
noun
(threats of) violent action for political purposes

Just a thought: That definition fits pretty well to the USA's recent actions in Iraq, no?

RicheyJames wrote:

markfiend wrote:

cambridge advanced learner's dictionary wrote:terrorism
noun
(threats of) violent action for political purposes

Just a thought: That definition fits pretty well to the USA's recent actions in Iraq, no?

don't be silly. that was for financial purposes...

the two are more-or-less synonymous in the US I thought...

Quiff Boy wrote: oh no., you're one of them are you? you and ness?

Drug firms put up £4m to pay for animal experiments

Heather Stewart
Thursday July 29, 2004
The Guardian

Britain's pharmaceutical giants delivered a defiant message to animal rights extremists yesterday, by launching a £4m research fund to pay for animal experiments in universities.
The three multinational drug companies with the largest research operations in the UK, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca and Pfizer, said they would back fellowships and pay for laboratory equipment to help universities continue animal testing in the face of increasing hostility from campaigners.

"This new fund will help ensure the quality of the basic animal research carried out in British universities," the three firms said. "Discovering and developing new medicines and vaccines is dependent upon being able to recruit graduates and postgraduates of the highest calibre from higher education."

Concerns about the power of extremists to disrupt research escalated last week, when construction group Montpellier pulled out of the contract to build a new animal research centre for Oxford University, after its shareholders received threatening letters. Cambridge dropped a plan for a new primate research centre in January after a similar campaign.

The £1m a year fund was welcomed by the science minister, Lord Sainsbury, yesterday. It will be administered by the British Pharmacological Association, which will use the money to give grants to research students, and support fellowships.

"In terms of new medicine discovery, I don't think there's a single drug that hasn't at some point been dependent on the use of animal testing," said a spokesman for the association. More animal experiments are carried out in Britain's universities than in industry - 40% of the total, compared to 37% in the private sector.

The pharmaceutical giants, which already face attacks from animal extremists, are concerned that they could also be hit by a lack of trained scientists graduating from universities. "Being able to do this kind of research is key to our ability to deliver the best care to the patient," said Gill Samuels, executive director of science for Pfizer in Europe, last night.

Drug companies are obliged by the government to test the safety of new products on animals before trying them out on human patients, but several have warned that the growing prevalence of animal rights activism could force them to move their research operations overseas. Few firms want to give details of attacks on their staff, but they list visits to the home addresses of employees, intimidating letters and "telephone bombardment" as some of the tactics used by campaigners.

Spurred by strong lobbying from the drug industry, the government is expected to announce new legal protection tomorrow for scientists and other workers who have faced intimidation from groups such as Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (Shac).

"These people are committing crimes and they should be dealt with harshly," the home secretary, David Blunkett, said yesterday. He said the aim of tomorrow's announcement would be "to strengthen the law and to strengthen collaboration between the police and other agencies".

Quiff Boy wrote:

Few firms want to give details of attacks on their staff, but they list visits to the home addresses of employees, intimidating letters and "telephone bombardment" as some of the tactics used by campaigners.

When we started to sell the morning-after pill at work we were sent threatening letters from pro-life protesters and received threatening phone calls. I couldn't even wait at the bus stop for the bus home I was convinced they would know who I was due to my uniform. I totally back this proposal to protect employees.

Sexygoth wrote:Here's my ikkle opinion. I really really don't agree with testing for cosmetic purposes, but that's pretty much obsolete now anyway so rather a moot point. As a nurse I see medical advances everyday. Not that i'm suggesting for one second that the cute little bunny is constantly in the lab to achieve this but I do understand the importance for such tests. I would have thought that the staff working in these labs find it nescassary and I strongly believe that if there was another way to achieve results, they would do it. I don't think a random nutter or nutters are going to all of a sudden change the way of testing because of intimidating and/or violent behaviour. I also believe, faced with a choice of allowing a family member or themselves to become very ill and possibly even die because they refuse to take a revolutionary new drug that's been tested on animals they wouldn't think twice.

Francis wrote:

Sexygoth wrote:Here's my ikkle opinion. I really really don't agree with testing for cosmetic purposes, but that's pretty much obsolete now anyway so rather a moot point. As a nurse I see medical advances everyday. Not that i'm suggesting for one second that the cute little bunny is constantly in the lab to achieve this but I do understand the importance for such tests. I would have thought that the staff working in these labs find it nescassary and I strongly believe that if there was another way to achieve results, they would do it. I don't think a random nutter or nutters are going to all of a sudden change the way of testing because of intimidating and/or violent behaviour. I also believe, faced with a choice of allowing a family member or themselves to become very ill and possibly even die because they refuse to take a revolutionary new drug that's been tested on animals they wouldn't think twice.

That's all very interesting but what's more important is have you saved enough from not smoking to buy those boots yet?

Sexygoth wrote:But what relevance does me not smoking and buying boots have to this post?

Sexygoth wrote:I also believe, faced with a choice of allowing a family member or themselves to become very ill and possibly even die because they refuse to take a revolutionary new drug that's been tested on animals they wouldn't think twice.

markfiend wrote:a little more maturity and a little more perspective allows me to see that there are grey areas.

Paul Weller wrote:Ideals are fine when you're young.