Talk:Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty/Archive 1

message: DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between DATE and DATE.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are
replying to if necessary.
Please add new archivals to Talk:Stop_Huntingdon_Animal_Cruelty/Archive02. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. localzuk 17:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

message: Did Wikipedia suddenly get SHAC sponsorship? The article reads like a page straight from shac.net -- you can almost feel the slimy hatred and rage coming out of the screen at you.
* Where did the link to ALF go? SHAC is undeniably the product of ALF, yet Natasha and Greg always insist to the press that SHAC is fuzzy and warm and has no connection to the ALF anarchist thugs. Then, when they're on a recruiting drive, they play up SHAC's links with ALF to new recruits. Greg went absolute mental for the cameras when he was interviewed on the Tonight with Trevor McDonald expose of SHAC last month.
* Why was the list of SHAC convictions removed? It is factual information, it is incredibly relevant to SHAC (an organisation who only ever appear in the news when they're harrassing, threatening, bombing, maiming or being sentenced), and removing it serves the purposes of SHAC, who like to pretend that they're never brought to book for their crimes.
* Now we have a giant picture of a photogenic animal in a lab cage, which is just the thing SHAC loves to promote. Not one of the thousands of rats, but a monkey. Monkeys make up less than 0.1% of HLS's animals, but rats and mice aren't cute enough for SHAC to rake in the donation money. If we're going to have that in the article, can we please add a large photo of Brian Cass just after his attack, with blood streaming down his face?
* Why was the link to Andrew Blake's opinions on SHAC removed? He is one of their many victims of harassment and intimidation.
* The government paper is explicitly concerned with "extremists". The government likes "activists" and has nothing much to say about them in its paper, but it firmly enforces the law against "extremists", and proposes a raft of measures against "extremism", not "activism". Animal rights extremists engage in harassment and intimidation. Animal rights activists would be aghast at such measures. SHAC may want you to conflate the two, but responsible activists don't.
What happened, Slim? You did a great job on your original copyedit of the article, but now it's a dishonest, thoroughly POV piece.
Kyz 03:06, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your comments. It's a hard page to edit from a NPOV because there are such strong feelings on both sides. I was also going to mention the external links. It might be helpful to find a few more pro-SHAC, pro-animal rights, or neutral links to balance out the anti-SHAC ones, so that there are more or less even numbers.
Hi Slim,
I understand the difficulty of reaching a neutral point of view, however other than external links (which are allowed to be POV), "balanced" levels of POV does not attain this.
#I understand your point and will update the article later to more accurately reflect the origins and affiliations of SHAC.
#I disagree about naming names. Not listing the crimes SHAC affiliates commit would unfairly bias the article in the favour of SHAC, and not naming them would cast aspersions on other SHAC members. It also favours SHAC to imply their criminal behaviour can be committed anonymously and without reprisal. I could live with it provided the references from the article were kept.
#The 0.1% figure is a collective stat for the whole of the UK, as already referenced. . You say the SHAC website only shows you monkeys, dogs, horses, etc. -- duh! Of course it does, it's a propaganda dissemination site. There is nothing SHAC would like more than for you to believe HLS works with nothing but monkeys, dogs and other photogenic animals. It also wants you to believe they're all "scum" and that SHAC will somehow succeed in shutting down HLS. You do know that Greg used to claim in 1999 that HLS would be shut within 4 years? It didn't happen. He lied, and continues to lie profusely. Here's a game for you -- find just one picture of a rat on shac.net (and I don't mean Mr Avery). These are by far the predominant species of animal used at HLS. Rats don't tug middle-class heartstrings and open wallets, thus SHAC don't show them. SHAC also lie when they try to associate themselves with animal welfare. They're not about the mere welfare of animals (if they were, they would be protesting for increased inspection and regulation of HLS, not protesting to shut it down). They're animal rights people -- they don't want a single animal used in medical testing. Medical science can go fuck itself. Ill humans can go fuck themselves. Animals are more important than people.
# I'll go see if I can get permission. At the moment, the article is severely biased to SHAC by having one of its propaganda pictures there and the NPOV dispute. However, I'm wondering if having two emotionally manipulative images from either side of the argument classes as "neutral". What do you think?
#I will restore it later.
#I'm talking about the "animal rights activists are interested in harassment and intimidation" line. They are most certainly not. This is behaviour only found in the extremists, not run-of-the-mill AW/AR activists who are a peaceful lot.
I hope we can reach a neutral consensus. You clearly have Wikipedia's interests at heart and I welcome any feedback you may have.
My Anonymous friend:
OK, you got me. I work at HLS, obviously. The commute from Edinburgh each day is a killer, I tell you. It's not just HLS employees that disagree with SHAC. SHAC's detractors include scientists worldwide who have a right to work without threats on their life, it includes the majority of the UK public who are prepared to accept testing on animals if it means improved medical techniques and drugs, and it includes the animal welfare and animal rights activists themselves, who condemn SHAC's sick flagship campaign of bullying, harrassment and intimidation against anyone related to HLS. "Protecting animals" is just an excuse for these thugs to get their thrills. Kyz 16:34, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Edit: Note that there are images of rats    and other rodents  on shac.net - But you are right that they are somewhat underrepresented. 
Ravn 17:40, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: What happened here?

message: * I cannot imagine it has not been linked to SHAC. Obviously it does not obey SHAC principles and is therefore by definition not a SHAC action, but the relation of Dave and this action to the campaign is hard not to see.
* Has anyone got external sources as to whether HLS is "no longer in financial dire straits" and/or owes 85 mio$? As this is a delicate subject, we imperatively need sources. 
* I removed any speculations on the (HLS') future. This is an encyclopedia, not an oracle. 
:Ravn 13:40, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on last partial revert (21. Jan 05) 

message: That is not the SHAC logo. It does not appear on their website. Do SHAC even have a logo? This pixellated image adds nothing to the page, and is inaccurate. I think it should be removed. 
--Raye 13:37, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: have you tried contacting User:Charlie123 on their talk pageGeni 19:59, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Contacting him on his talk page would have been better since that is where messages normaly go and it produces a "you have new messages" link at the top of the screenGeni 23:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why has that "SHAC logo" been added?

message: The article has been protected from editing per the request at WP:RFPP. Once you've resolved the debate over content it can be unprotected. FeloniousMonk 03:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article protected

message: I think it might be worth clarifying the difference between the two. They have separate websites and leaders. The US website seems more aggressive. E.g., at the moment, it has links like:
LATE NIGHT HOME VISITS FOR 4 ROCHE EMPLOYEES
Who can sleep when there are puppy killers on the loose?
September 15, 2005
SENIOR VP FOR GLAXO GETS A LATE NIGHT WAKE UP
a rape alarm kept their ears ringing...
October 19, 2005
3 UPS STORES ATTACKED BY THE ALF
(external link) Canada joining in Italy's quest to stop UPS!
Still they try to suggest that the actions are not done by them - they merely report them in a positive manner. So the statement in the article: 'SHAC say they do not condone unlawful activities and publish names and addresses only so that people can protest peacefully and within the law. ' might be true of the UK one, but the US website definitely glorifies these activities.
Oh, and here's an injunction against SHAC in the USA. http://www.shacamerica.net/images/injunctions/Injunction_Order_4_12_05.pdf
They quite clearly can be stopped as an organisation, so contrary to what the article says they are not impossible to sue. The courts do not say 'oh dear, they say they can't be stopped because they are not an incorporated body, let's do nothing'.
Further evidence of this:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1837349_1,00.html
Assets of London Animal Action (note, not SHAC - not all anti-HLS activites are SHAC, as SlimVirgin has been saying), were seized in paying the bill of HLS to protect itself. They have a similar argument to SHAC, that they are this 'leaderless organisation', and cannot be stopped. The judge rejected the argument:
'The action group argued that the earlier order was unlawful, because the group has no formal membership or elected officers and is an unincorporated association, which does not normally exist in law. 
In dismissing the appeal, Mr Justice Mackay said: “The novelty of the form of order in this case is plain and the need for it is obvious.” '
There is an interesting quote from Greg Avery in the same article, giving some context to him living in a rent-free house: 
'Yesterday’s ruling comes two months after HLS forced the leaders of another high-profile animal rights campaign into bankruptcy. 
It won a county court judgment against Greg Avery, his wife Natasha and his former wife Heather James, who founded Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, after demands for payment of costs were ignored. 
Mr Avery said at the time: “They’re definitely not going to get a penny of it. I always tell people getting into animal rights to make themselves asset-free. We don’t own anything.”
'
147.114.226.173 18:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: SHAC USA/UK

message: From Victims of Animal Rights Extremism:
(a computer scientist at HLS):
http://www.vare.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=27
A Japanese pharmaceutical worker describing assaults:
http://www.vare.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=27
147.114.226.173 18:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought we'd agreed to work together, so I'm disappointed to see you've made another allegation. Do you prefer that hostilities continue, or can we agree to bury the hatchet and pull our resources? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Allegations of harrassment