Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Sunday, 1st August 2010

Protesters stage mock funeral for 'murdered' animals

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date:
11 December 2009
Police watched as demonstrators staged a mock funeral march to mark international animal rights day at a controversial animal testing laboratory.
A dozen protesters gathered in Wickham Square dressed as funeral ushers and mourners, carrying a miniature coffin and gravestones to remember the animals they say are 'murdered' in Wickham Labs, near Fareham.

The members of Stop Wickham Animal Testing (SWAT) had written to police asking for permission to shut about 100yards of Winchester Road as they marched between Wickham Square and the labs, but were refused.

Protester Jeanette McClunan said: 'I think they've taken away our human rights and our right to peaceful protest.

'I thought this was supposed to change after the report reflecting on the G20 but the police just want to take control of everything they can.'

The group marched around the square before heading up to the labs. Workers leaving the labs were greeted with chants of: 'Animal murderers,' and asked: 'What's it like to have blood on your hands?'

But Hampshire Constabulary defended their decision to stop the protest from going on the road.

Chief Inspector Steve Baxter, of central OCU operations, said: 'When deciding whether or not to close a road we consider factors of safety, the right to peaceful protest, and the wider impact on the surrounding community, and we have to balance these sometimes competing interests when making a decision.

'If we had closed the road it would have meant closing the main route through Wickham in the middle of the afternoon, causing significant disruption to traffic in the area.'

And taking into account the problems of diverting heavy traffic, including lorries and buses, Ch Insp Baxter added: 'Having considered all of these factors I decided that this relatively small group of protesters could safely and peacefully protest without the road being closed.'

The Home Office is currently investigating claims made by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) after one of its members worked undercover for eight months at the labs.

They claim to have uncovered numerous cases of animal cruelty. Lab technical director Chris Bishop has said they will work with the Home Office in its investigation.

>> Vote in our latest web poll.

Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 11 December 2009 10:09 AM
  • Source: The News
  • Location: Portsmouth
 
Prev
1
Next
1

Pompey Freedom Fighters,

Pompey- 11/12/2009 12:38:05
hancocksfollies.com
2

Impressed - not.,

11/12/2009 14:03:33
"Protester Jeanette McClunan said: 'I think they've taken away our human rights and our right to peaceful protest.

'I thought this was supposed to change after the report reflecting on the G20 but the police just want to take control of everything they can.'"

Rubbish - check your Human Rights before quoting them you silly woman. You might want to check the legal rights relating to public protest as well. You can protest, but you cannot march as it involves closure of roads, which is why they let you carry out your peaceful protest.

More to the point, why not protest about the conditions some humans have to live in instead - do something worthwhile with your time!
3

Scumstomper2,

Gosport 11/12/2009 15:57:59
Tree huggin' hippies...
4

Wrinkley,

PORTSMOUTH 11/12/2009 16:42:14
I bet they also complain about kids hanging around on street corners!

I bet that, as a point of principle, they have not had a flu jab and would refuse the swine flu jab because they have been the result of tests performed on animals!

Couldn't someone arrange a collection so that a bus can be hired to ship them back to Greenham Common?

5

N Bryant,

Copsale, Horsham 12/12/2009 18:36:51
What a bunch of sad people those shown are, people are still dieing from things that by research cures may be found, they still do not realise that one can not compare an animals life with one of that of a human person but I guess the message will never get across.
6

Dan Lyons,

Sheffield 14/12/2009 12:25:45
Congratulations to these brave, principled people who take the trouble to stand up for the most vulnerable victims of abuse, especially in the face of some of the ignorance as expressed in some of the other comments. First of all, humans are animals, and animal rights includes basic human rights. Secondly - 'Impressed not' - yes there are still human welfare issues to tackle (do you?) but the systematic abuse handed out to animals - e.g. 3.5 million animals subjected to painful and lethal experiments in UK annually - far outweighs the suffering we inflict on each other. Finally, we need to realise that animal experiments are a very crude and unreliable way of investigating human disease - and surely at the very least animals shouldn't be made to suffer for cosmetic botox injections?
7

Dan Lyons,

Sheffield 15/12/2009 17:42:28
As Darwin first observed, there are many other species of animal with similar thought processes to us. In particular, their sensitivity to pain is broadly the same - that is the scientific consensus. Which makes sense, unless you believe we are descended from aliens or a creationist. The hypothetical child or primates dilemma does not reflect the reality of how medical research actually happens. As for the 'survival of the fittest' principle - we have to ask ourselves how we would feel if someone 'fitter' than us decided to torture and kill us to further their interests? I think most poeple would prefer to live in a civilized society based on respect and ethics rather than one where 'might is right' - which is of course the basic principle of fascist regimes and bullies everywhere.
Dr Dan Lyons
8

Dan Lyons,

Sheffield 16/12/2009 15:21:52
My assumption that most people would prefer to live in a society with ethics and the rule of law rather than 'the law of the jungle' is fairly well founded. After all, that's why we fought the second world war against the Nazis. Clearly, some humans are more powerful than others, but would it be right for the powerful ones to vivisect the weaker ones in hope of extracting useful information? If not, then if you are logical and consistent you need to apply the same respect to other animals. I'm afraid this 'top of the tree' line is arrogant nonsense that doesn't reflect the reality of the world. Yes we may be cleverer in certain ways than other animals, but look at the way many of us behave (e.g. city centres on a weekend evening) and the destruction we cause. The idea that we are inherently better than other animals is just an irrational prejudice.
9

thepompeypaul. ,

Fareham 16/12/2009 22:19:07
Didn't think that much medical testing was done at Wickham, thought it mostly cosmetics. Even so, before you place all your faith in animal research, just before they inject your child with an animal teated medicine, consider this. Thalidomide was tested on animals.
Prev
1
Next

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.