|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2009 9:09:20 GMT
What they did was terrible. But does anyone think that these sentences are high, at least when compared with those received by the men who raped and poured acid over a disabled girl? blackmailer gets 11 years
|
|
|
Post by drewsmom595 on Jan 25, 2009 11:24:09 GMT
Your link didn't work for me...I just got an error message that said "bad gateway".
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2009 13:21:54 GMT
I've just tried the link and it works for me.
It was from Wednesday's Independent which was very long but I'll cut and paste the first half:
Seven animal rights activists who blackmailed companies linked to Huntingdon Life Sciences in an attempt to close down the animal testing lab were today jailed for between four and 11 years. The six-year international conspiracy between 2001 and 2007 targeted firms across the UK and Europe that either supplied or had secondary links with the Cambridge-based company. The leaders of the blackmail conspiracy, Gregg Avery, 41, Natasha Avery, 39, and Heather Nicholson, 41, were founder members of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (Shac) which was a front organisation which organised strategy and attacks on the firms and their staff, often under the badge of the Animal Liberation Front. They were assisted by computer expert Gavin Medd-Hall, 45, who researched the victims for Shac, and three "foot soldiers", Gerrah Selby, 20, Daniel Wadham, 21, and Daniel Amos, 22. Sentencing the activists at Winchester Crown Court, Mr Justice Butterfield called the campaign "urban terrorism" and a "relentless, sustained and merciless persecution" which had made the victims lives "a living hell". The campaign used threats such as claiming that managers of companies which supplied Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) were paedophiles. Homes of staff, and firms, had hoax bomb parcels sent to them or received threatening telephone calls. Threats of violence were also used to force companies to cut links with HLS. Words like "puppy killer" and "scum" were painted on homes and cars of workers, cars were paint stripped, and used sanitary towels were posted to the victims with a note saying the sender had Aids. The aim was to target suppliers or any company with a secondary link with HLS, and the campaign would only stop when the company put out a "capitulation statement" saying it would end links. Heather Nicholson, from Eversley in Hampshire, received 11 years after she was convicted of conspiracy to blackmail at a trial last year. Gregg Avery and his wife Natasha, also from Eversley, received nine years because they pleaded guilty to the charge. Medd-Hall, from Croydon, south London, who was convicted at the same trial as Nicholson, received eight years. Wadham, from Bromley, south-east London, was sentenced to five years after he was convicted last year. Selby, from Chiswick, west London, who was convicted of the charge at the same trial as the others, received four years, and Amos from Church Crookham, Hants, who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to blackmail, received four years. Mr Justice Butterfield said he accepted that the seven had genuine deeply-held beliefs that animal testing was wrong, and had the right to protest against it. But he told the activists that companies "had the right to conduct vital biomedical research" and "the right to conduct lawful trading". e said Shac was "a hypocritical scam" which hid its true intention of terrorising companies and their staff who had links with HLS. "It was a relentless, sustained campaign designed to strike such fear in the minds of employees that the companies would capitulate," he said. He called the leaders of the conspiracy "lifelong, veteran, fanatical animal rights activists" and said he had little confidence they would not continue their activities when released from prison. "I expect you will be seen by some as martyrs for a noble cause but that would be misplaced," he told all seven. "You are not going to prison for expressing your beliefs, you are going to prison because you have committed a serious criminal offence."
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 26, 2009 14:04:48 GMT
while it seems that they did go a bit overboard, they certainly did nothing wrong, especially deserving of jail time. this clearly shows the egregious failing of the criminal system. of course, what does one expect from a system which lets the vicious torture murderers of a ten year old boy loose after eight years, and imprisons upstanding citizens such as tony martin for doing absolutely nothing wrong?
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 26, 2009 18:28:02 GMT
while it seems that they did go a bit overboard, they certainly did nothing wrong, I can't believe that you summarise the consistent, terrorist activities of these people as 'certainly did nothing wrong'. Tell that to the people who lost their livelihood as a result of these scum, or to the people who have to look under their cars every day to check for car bombs before going to their jobs where they're trying to find a cure for cancer. Yes Jumbo, they certainly did do something wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2009 18:54:44 GMT
Blackmail - nothing wrong? Oh come on, Ianjumbo, you can't believe that?
They made death threats, sent hoax bomb parcels, branded innocent men as paedophiles....
and (though they were not convicted of this) they probably set back the legitimate campaign against unecessary animal experiments by at least 10 years.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 26, 2009 19:30:56 GMT
As it happens I am opposed to animal experiments on the whole (I once met someone who is only alive as a result of animal research so as usual I'm that terrible thing a fencesitter - though my emotional sympathies are with those who oppose them) I think the ALF are on a par with the IRA/Hamas/Hezbollah in their methods.
I would certainly have locked up the scum who raped and poured acid over a poor young girl for the rest of their lives.
On the other hand, to say that these morons did nothing wrong is pretty pathetic, Jim.
You've obviously been listening to that soft on crime/pro predator/anti masquerading as a pro Joe Phillips too much.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 28, 2009 12:54:31 GMT
while it seems that they did go a bit overboard, they certainly did nothing wrong, I can't believe that you summarise the consistent, terrorist activities of these people as 'certainly did nothing wrong'. Tell that to the people who lost their livelihood as a result of these scum, or to the people who have to look under their cars every day to check for car bombs before going to their jobs where they're trying to find a cure for cancer. Yes Jumbo, they certainly did do something wrong. i agree, and said, that killing or injuring people is not the way to go. obviously though, anything short of that is not wrong. what is wrong, is to torture animals for no reason, which ALL animal experimentation, without exception, is. if they want to experiment with something that is intended for humans, the ONLY morally proper way is to test it on humans. IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO TORTURE ANIMALS TO FIND A CURE FOR CANCER!! no way, no how
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 28, 2009 13:20:17 GMT
Blackmail - nothing wrong? Oh come on, Ianjumbo, you can't believe that? They made death threats, sent hoax bomb parcels, branded innocent men as paedophiles.... and (though they were not convicted of this) they probably set back the legitimate campaign against unecessary animal experiments by at least 10 years. i don't disagree with you. there are better ways, although the history of peacefully stopping animal experiments hasn't been overly successful. there are still far too many who choose to torture animals for NO reason, much less a legitimate one. society as a whole has to wake up and recognize that, under NO circumstances should animal experimentation be allowed since it is totally unnecessary to accomplish the goal of finding cures for anything
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 28, 2009 13:25:29 GMT
As it happens I am opposed to animal experiments on the whole (I once met someone who is only alive as a result of animal research so as usual I'm that terrible thing a fencesitter - though my emotional sympathies are with those who oppose them) I think the ALF are on a par with the IRA/Hamas/Hezbollah in their methods. I would certainly have locked up the scum who raped and poured acid over a poor young girl for the rest of their lives. On the other hand, to say that these morons did nothing wrong is pretty pathetic, Jim. You've obviously been listening to that soft on crime/pro predator/anti masquerading as a pro Joe Phillips too much. wrong hon. it has been almost a year since i had an encounter with our beloved joe. the point is, no one is alive because of animal experimentation. every cure that has been discovered as a result of animal experimentation would have been discovered without it. obviously, it would have cost the experimenters much more money, but the animals are worth more than whatever it costs. then, there is the trash that torture animals to make cosmetics and other totally unnecessary items. EVERYTHING meant for humans can be tested on humans.
|
|
|
Post by cammie on Jan 28, 2009 14:07:52 GMT
I think DR inmates should be used for testing new drugs and cosmetics. They are going to die anyway. This would be an option of course, and delay execution as a payoff. Or, pay the inmates so the money could be used to offset the prisoner's victim(s) expenses in wrongful death lawsuits. Animals are innocent creatures. While they may be valued by our society as less than humans, some humans are worth less than animals. _____________ Or, miracle of mircles, have the prisoner's earn their own upkeep acting as test subjects. _____________________ As for the jail time of 10 years for blackmail in this case, that is more than some murderers recieve, so 10 years is too long. There is NO crime that should recieve more time than murder.
|
|
|
Post by cammie on Jan 28, 2009 14:10:14 GMT
I changed my mind. "ALL" murderers should be used as test subjects, not just DR inmates. It wouldn' hurt for rapists to be poked and prodded a bit too.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 28, 2009 18:42:00 GMT
who's violating the eighth amendment? remember that, anything short of choking to death for twenty minutes or so on a rope is NOT cruel or unusual punishment
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2009 19:35:30 GMT
who's violating the eighth amendment? remember that, anything short of choking to death for twenty minutes or so on a rope is NOT cruel or unusual punishment dear me! I really must educate you Yanks about the Long Drop. Anyway, I thoroughly agrtee with your views about animal experiments. Most of them are useless and cruel.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 28, 2009 20:30:15 GMT
who's violating the eighth amendment? remember that, anything short of choking to death for twenty minutes or so on a rope is NOT cruel or unusual punishment dear me! I really must educate you Yanks about the Long Drop. Anyway, I thoroughly agrtee with your views about animal experiments. Most of them are useless and cruel. And I thoroughly disagree. Had it not been for some pretty nasty animal experiments (including removal of the pancreas from some mammals then allowing them to die) my 16 year old daughter, a type 1 diabetic, would have been stone dead years ago. I'm pretty excited by the hope that stem cell research, now freed up by President Obama, may ultimately put an end to the need for animal experiments, but in the meantime . . . My sister - a scientist - when employed by Cancer Research helped to make several breakthroughs in the treatment and cure of colon cancer using pigs. I used to support financially a charity called Seriously Ill for Medical Research and still support a lot of what they stood for. They did try to highlight the emotive and dishonest way that 'animal rights' people used propaganda to try to persuade the soft-hearted, animal-loving public that animal experiments were not necessary. Sure, some aren't. But some really ,really are.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jan 28, 2009 20:42:18 GMT
Riotgrrl beat me to it. Well said.
It's a lovely thought but it's simply not true. I wish it were because I can't bear the idea but you only have to know one person whose life has been saved through medical advances to realise that animal experimentation is vital unless you are willing to slow down advances in medicine dramatically and lose thousands and thousands of people needlessly.
All we can do is try to keep guidelines strict enough to limit cruelty and keep on researching other methods, such as the embryonic research, that wouldn't have been achieved without the animal research that preceded it.
I'm vegetarian and we can live without meat so I choose to do that. Other people can live without meat too but choose not to. We can live without cosmetics at all or with limited cosmetics that are never tested on animals.
But many people cannot live without medical intervention that is only here right now because of animal experiments.
It's not nice, it's just fact.
|
|