depends-on-the-definition-of-terrorism. Peaceful-Protesters-can-be-classed-as-terrorists-under-the-new-anti-terrorism-laws...you-better-watch-out If you go on any sort of political demonstration, the chances are that police or security personnel will film you. Big Brother is watching you more and more... and he can also listen to you too. Via the Echelon communications monitoring system run by the American "National Security Agency" operating out of bases at Morwenstow, Cornwall and Menwith Hills, North Yorkshire, England. This system monitors telephone, fax and e-mail communications throughout Europe and elsewhere. It is programmed to lock on to a particular communication for analysis if certain "key" words are used in that communication. If you carry a mobile phone, even when switched off, it emits a radio signal to the nearest base station. So with the co-operation of the mobile phone companies, your movements can now be tracked too. Under the Security Services Act, MI5 now has powers of policing with wide discretion to bug and burgle, but with no definition of what categories of people are liable to surveillance, and no limit on what activities can be subject to surveillance. In 1998, the EU came up with Enfopol 98, a plan requiring telecommunications companies to build tapping connections into every kind of communications system including mobile phones, the internet, fax machines, pagers and interactive cable TV services. Pursuant to this, using a “fast track” bill and its huge majority in parliament, the government rushed through the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act; this gives the police and security services the power to monitor internet mailing lists. They can also order internet service providers to give them access to peoples’ private E-mail. The latest measures, contained in an EU directive, allow governments to require that phone and internet companies shall retain detailed logs of their customers communications for an unlimited period – presently these are kept for short periods for billing purposes and are destroyed thereafter. Whilst police still require a warrant to intercept the content of electronic communications, this legislation means they can build up a complete picture of peoples personal communications, including who they have e-mailed and telephoned and which internet websites they have visited. As always, it is claimed that such measures are targeted at organised crime, drug trafficking, paedophilia, terrorism etc., but clearly they can be used against any form of dissent.
Indeed. I don't agree that the ALF were a terrorist organisation (I certainly don't agree with all of their methods either, fuckwits if yer ask me)....but terrorists they were branded. This countries law's boggle me.....farting in public will be a terrorist act soon...and i thought the Criminal Justice Act was harsh....yeesh... New Zealand here we come, this place is going to wrack and ruin
Will the research/breeding be 'farmed out' [sorry about that] too other labs/farms .. One closes + more work for others = No difference. ?.
noooo you're missing my point, maybe it was a bad example, I'm just saying that people who protest peacefully will gain a lot more support and more open ears from the general public compared to people that use violence. i'm not trying to say the animal rights activists are like the IRA, i'm just bad at explaining things.
*here-we-go-on-the-magic-wheel-again.....round-and-round* So,whilst-we-are-peacefully-protesting...who-looks-after-the-animals? I-do-get-your-point...but-I-don't-think-the-ALF-etc-do-a-bad-job-at-all
So using violence is acceptable is it? In no way is violence acceptable, two wrongs don't make a right. Until now, what has violence done anyway? The animals were still being tested on etc.
I think the whole episode is tragic and shameful. And I dont say this lightly, as I have turned my back on mainstream society so would usually embrace this sort of thing. I do not see that it is any victory of any kind in which basic morals are swept aside - two wrongs do not make a right, and handing out suffering to innocent parties because they are soft targets is hardly the work of heroes. Have some balls and tackle the problem head on, don't get going after children, grandchildren, or somebody's dead mother. The rest of the animal rights community were appalled. :$ IMO the groups tend to attract the wrong type of people who use the campaign as an excuse purely for violence and intimidation - basically as a thrill. I have increasingly turned away from campaigning for animal rights now, as many others have... I can see this latest news encouraging extremists more but in doing so also divide the cause more and generate division. So no, I think this is a actually a defeat for animal rights and also basic moral principles. Those who make references to the animals suffering themselves are missing the whole point, we are animals ourselves so I personally can't support suffering of our own kind as we are stooping to the level of them, and targetting innocents (real innocents, e.g. those guilty only by being related to the guilty parties) takes this to a new level.
Well-that's-where-we-differ. I-do-feel-that-violence-is-acceptable-sometimes....for-example-when-I-hit-back-when-my-ex-was-trying-to-beat-me-up....sometimes-violence-is-inevitable... Digging-up-bones-isn't-violence...neither-is-setting-off-smoke-bombs-or-setting-animals-free-or-staging-demo's-outside-vivisectionists-homes...
To the post above Claires: Excactly. In a way, the ALF or whoever does acts like that is extremely hypocritical.
No those acts aren't violence, but there has been violence used. As for you're first point, you could have done that, in my view that is different, or you could have taken it then rang the police and got him locked up. The latter would have been more succesful in the long term probably. But anyway that's beside the point, I think it's outrageous that he was hitting you in the first place, I am against that completely, as I am against testing using animals. I just think achieving what they want, violence should never be the way.
Oh, another question, are you against using animals for cosmetics testing, or medical testing or both? Because I disagree completely with the cosmetics side of it, but I can see both arguments for medical reasons.
both...but-I'd-rather-not-go-into-the-ins-and-out-of-it-all-on-here. I've-had-this-discussion-a-lot Peace
lol if you went into it I probably wouldn't understand, I'm only ickle, have so much to learn Peace & love and not sounding cheesy (yeh it sounded cheesy)
