national

National Demonstration against Shamrock Farm

30th January 2000

	Sunday 30th January saw the long awaited National Demonstration. Newspapers predictably saw fit to report the story from the tiresome "animal extremist" angle. The truth is that the greatest proportion of protesters were ordinary people expressing their views and exercising their democratic right to protest.
	Hundreds of people converged upon this quiet, anonymous area. They came from all over the country and of course, there was a large local contingent. They were herded behind barriers opposite the entrance to Shamrock. It was a tiny, muddy areas and many of the older demonstrators actually found it quite hazardous.
	The crowd was good natured, some were chatting happily with police officers. However, it soon seemed that the police were determined to make arrests. Vans full of police in riot gear drove back and forth. One vehicle stopped and its cargo of riot police got out and paraded in front of the protesters. Until now, the only hint that a demonstration was taking place was the continuous chanting of "Close down Shamrock Farm". Not very original but there was not a great deal more that could be done.
	The sight of the riot police angered the crowd. No one had been threatening and there was no hint of aggression. However, the anger was now to be directed at the police as well as Shamrock. Those of us who were part of the Shoreham protests are familiar with the way the Police over react to "public order" issues. They seem to be unable to read the situation and they become liable to panic. This was probably not helped by the presence of the officer from the Thames Valley force, who clearly needed to be impressed.
	The crowd soon began to spill onto the road, some 100 metres from Shamrock. Although nothing more serious than this occured, the police seemed to be spooked. Van loads of riot police sped to the spot and the protesters were soon surrounded.
	Three police vans drove slowly towards the crowd, forcing them to become tightly packed. Three more vans cut off the road to the south.
	Had the police left the situation as it was, the crowd would soon have become bored and would probably have dispersed of their own accord. But they seemed determined to make arrests.
	Arrest teams dashed into the crowd and pulled individuals out. They were were dragged behind the police lines and at least one protester was sat on by a police officer. This person later needed an ambulance. A pregnant woman was grabbed and dragged to the floor and one gentleman had his hip broken as a result of his unresisted arrest.
	This was a group of ordinary people with no expectation of reward or gain, standing up against something they believe to be wrong. No officer was threatened as far as I could see. Nothing was thrown. No violence was offered - except by the police. No doubt they will say that the protesters were obstructing the highway. The truth is that the police themselves blocked the road long after the bulk of the protesters had left.
	Perhaps someone should tell them that they are paid to police everyone. They should give as much respect and consideration to the protesters as they do to the people who abuse animals. Their tactics of intimidation will not deter people. It did not during the Shoreham protests and it will not now. All we ask for is a little common sense and fairness..
	Despite the police, it was a valuable day. Shamrock is becoming high profile both locally and nationally. The protesters will not be going away. In fact there is a presence every morning and every evening to greet the workers when they arrive for work and when they leave for home. Several have resigned and a number of local companies have refused to work for Shamrock now that they know what goes on there.

More demonstrations, national and regional, are planned.

The issues surrounding vivisection are complex and they are dealt with on other web sites. Whether or not testing drugs on monkeys is valid science is questionable. Whether such testing makes drugs safer for humans is equally questionable. We should remember that Thalidomide was tested on animals. The results of this are widely known. Other similar examples exist.

An article in the "New Scientist" of September 1999 explains how Andy Maniotis of the University of Iowa believes that the discovery of the "strange" vascular systems associated with cancer would have come to light earlier if scientists had not been so dependent upon animals experimentation. He says that scientists will have to think again about how much animal studies tell us about cancer in people. "People are very complacent with their animal models, but this begs the question of whether there is a good model for cancer".

There also exists the ethical issue. Do we have the moral right to use animals to further our own ends? If as some scientists claim, monkeys are close enough to humans to make them a valid model, are they not too close to abuse and to experiment on?

Before coming to power, New Labour appeared very proud of their animal welfare credentials. In pre-election literature they said: "Labour led the call to end the use of wild-caught primates in U.K. laboratories." Further, they promised to "support a Royal Commission to review the effectiveness and justification of animal experiments, and to examine alternatives". Perhaps they should bear in mind that those who put them in power are just as capable of taking that power away. A promise broken equates to several thosand votes lost.