Animal rights activist admits bank campaign (From Daily Echo)
When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
Ringwood man a prominent member of gang targeting life science group
10:50am Thursday 6th January 2011 in News
AN animal rights activist has admitted a series of attacks on Barclays Bank branches across Hampshire because of the company’s then links to the animal testing lab Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS).
Thomas Harris admitted he was involved in attacks on four branches of the bank across Hampshire.
The 27-year-old is a prominent member of the group Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (Shac), and is already serving a four-year jail term for conspiracy to blackmail companies linked to Cambridge-based HLS in an attempt to close it down.
Harris, of Somerville Road, Ringwood, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit criminal damage between September and November 2008 on the eve of his trial at Winchester Crown Court.
Two others, Christopher Potter, 20, and Maria Neal, 19, both from Seggs Lane, Alcester, Warwickshire, pleaded guilty to the same charge at an earlier hearing.
The maximum sentence for the offence is ten years in prison.
Harris’s girlfriend and another prominent member of Shac, Nicola Tapping, 29, who is also serving a prison sentence for earlier offences linked to Shac, had a charge of conspiracy to commit criminal damage ordered to lie on file by the judge, Keith Cutler.
The trio planned and carried out the attack on Barclays, leaving graffiti such as “murderer” daubed on doors. They then damaged a car of someone they mistakenly thought had links to a company supplying HLS.
A FedEx van was also damaged by the extremists.
The three will be sentenced at Winchester Crown Court on January 13.
Barclays said today it no longer has links to HLS but did through its asset management business when the attacks took place.
The hearing is the latest in a series of prosecutions of people linked to Shac. In October last year, six activists, including Harris and Tapping, were sentenced for their part in attempts to close HLS down.
Other members of Shac, including the founder members Gregg Avery, Natasha Avery and Heather Nicholson, were given lengthy jail terms in January 2009 for blackmailing companies linked to HLS.
Comments(16)
freefinker
says...
11:55am Thu 6 Jan 11
Dasal wrote:and, at the end of the day, SO ARE WE.
The testing on animals is done for the long term benefit of mankind.I can understand people who may not like the idea, but if in the end, peoples lives - maybe even the protesters - are better for it.
If these people showed as much concern for their fellow humans, the world MAY be a better place.
At the end of the day, THEY'RE ONLY ANIMALS !!
hulla baloo
says...
11:56am Thu 6 Jan 11
He gets 4 years for conspiracy to blackmail, plus another possible sentence for criminal damage, and another story here a man gets a minimum 3 years for sexual offences against a woman.
Dasal
says...
12:13pm Thu 6 Jan 11
freefinker wrote:and, would you rather testing was done on children??
Dasal wrote: The testing on animals is done for the long term benefit of mankind.I can understand people who may not like the idea, but if in the end, peoples lives - maybe even the protesters - are better for it. If these people showed as much concern for their fellow humans, the world MAY be a better place. At the end of the day, THEY'RE ONLY ANIMALS !!and, at the end of the day, SO ARE WE.
freefinker
says...
12:19pm Thu 6 Jan 11
hulla baloo wrote:.. very true, hulla baloo.
Once again it seems the judiciary places higher value on 'the establishment' above humans.
He gets 4 years for conspiracy to blackmail, plus another possible sentence for criminal damage, and another story here a man gets a minimum 3 years for sexual offences against a woman.
After the "criminal damage" the banks have inflicted upon our economic wellbeing, a bit of graffiti is the least they deserve.
I’m not condoning these peoples other actions, may I add, but it does seem the courts take damage to property as a more serious offence than violence against people.
Shoong
says...
12:26pm Thu 6 Jan 11
freefinker wrote:Then I assume it's ok for me to roll up on your house then & spray it with a can.
hulla baloo wrote:.. very true, hulla baloo.
Once again it seems the judiciary places higher value on 'the establishment' above humans.
He gets 4 years for conspiracy to blackmail, plus another possible sentence for criminal damage, and another story here a man gets a minimum 3 years for sexual offences against a woman.
After the "criminal damage" the banks have inflicted upon our economic wellbeing, a bit of graffiti is the least they deserve.
I’m not condoning these peoples other actions, may I add, but it does seem the courts take damage to property as a more serious offence than violence against people.
I'll make it Banksy-esque & we can call it 'art' as well.
Torchie1
says...
12:56pm Thu 6 Jan 11
Dasal wrote:Some of the feral trash you see loitering on the streets would be ideal candidates as long as the tests didn't require any level of intelligence.
freefinker wrote:and, would you rather testing was done on children??
Dasal wrote: The testing on animals is done for the long term benefit of mankind.I can understand people who may not like the idea, but if in the end, peoples lives - maybe even the protesters - are better for it. If these people showed as much concern for their fellow humans, the world MAY be a better place. At the end of the day, THEY'RE ONLY ANIMALS !!and, at the end of the day, SO ARE WE.
freefinker
says...
1:06pm Thu 6 Jan 11
Shoong wrote:No, unless you're as talented as Banksy.
freefinker wrote:Then I assume it's ok for me to roll up on your house then & spray it with a can.
hulla baloo wrote:.. very true, hulla baloo.
Once again it seems the judiciary places higher value on 'the establishment' above humans.
He gets 4 years for conspiracy to blackmail, plus another possible sentence for criminal damage, and another story here a man gets a minimum 3 years for sexual offences against a woman.
After the "criminal damage" the banks have inflicted upon our economic wellbeing, a bit of graffiti is the least they deserve.
I’m not condoning these peoples other actions, may I add, but it does seem the courts take damage to property as a more serious offence than violence against people.
I'll make it Banksy-esque & we can call it 'art' as well.
.
I have not caused the economic damage of the bankers and you have apparently lost your sense of humour over my tongue in cheek comment.
Shoong
says...
1:40pm Thu 6 Jan 11
freefinker wrote:Using "quotes" counts as 'tongue in cheek' now does it?
Shoong wrote:No, unless you're as talented as Banksy.
freefinker wrote:Then I assume it's ok for me to roll up on your house then & spray it with a can.
hulla baloo wrote:.. very true, hulla baloo.
Once again it seems the judiciary places higher value on 'the establishment' above humans.
He gets 4 years for conspiracy to blackmail, plus another possible sentence for criminal damage, and another story here a man gets a minimum 3 years for sexual offences against a woman.
After the "criminal damage" the banks have inflicted upon our economic wellbeing, a bit of graffiti is the least they deserve.
I’m not condoning these peoples other actions, may I add, but it does seem the courts take damage to property as a more serious offence than violence against people.
I'll make it Banksy-esque & we can call it 'art' as well.
.
I have not caused the economic damage of the bankers and you have apparently lost your sense of humour over my tongue in cheek comment.
Besides, you should use 'quotes'...
B+
Must do better.
freefinker
says...
2:15pm Thu 6 Jan 11
Shoong wrote:punctuation nazi as well?
freefinker wrote:Using "quotes" counts as 'tongue in cheek' now does it?
Shoong wrote:No, unless you're as talented as Banksy.
freefinker wrote:Then I assume it's ok for me to roll up on your house then & spray it with a can.
hulla baloo wrote:.. very true, hulla baloo.
Once again it seems the judiciary places higher value on 'the establishment' above humans.
He gets 4 years for conspiracy to blackmail, plus another possible sentence for criminal damage, and another story here a man gets a minimum 3 years for sexual offences against a woman.
After the "criminal damage" the banks have inflicted upon our economic wellbeing, a bit of graffiti is the least they deserve.
I’m not condoning these peoples other actions, may I add, but it does seem the courts take damage to property as a more serious offence than violence against people.
I'll make it Banksy-esque & we can call it 'art' as well.
.
I have not caused the economic damage of the bankers and you have apparently lost your sense of humour over my tongue in cheek comment.
Besides, you should use 'quotes'...
B+
Must do better.
.. the charge against them is "conspiracy to commit criminal damage" - from this that I obtained the quoted words.
.. the tongue in cheek is to conflate the respective damage of graffiti with economic irresponsibility.
.. lighten up.
soton1980
says...
3:32pm Thu 6 Jan 11
.
Obviously the full extent of his activities aren't clear, but I don't think a jail sentence of four years is right in this situation. Re-education is what is needed, as many of these individuals have a false notion inside their heads that these tests mean the animals suffer. Most of the time this is not the case and the animals are well looked after. I'm totally against animal cruelty, but the distinction has to be made.
freemantlegirl2
says...
5:44pm Thu 6 Jan 11
freefinker wrote:Agree FF with your original thoughts, and don't reply to the trolls no use discussing anything with 'unarmed' person ;)
Shoong wrote:punctuation nazi as well?
freefinker wrote:Using "quotes" counts as 'tongue in cheek' now does it?
Shoong wrote:No, unless you're as talented as Banksy.
freefinker wrote:Then I assume it's ok for me to roll up on your house then & spray it with a can.
hulla baloo wrote:.. very true, hulla baloo.
Once again it seems the judiciary places higher value on 'the establishment' above humans.
He gets 4 years for conspiracy to blackmail, plus another possible sentence for criminal damage, and another story here a man gets a minimum 3 years for sexual offences against a woman.
After the "criminal damage" the banks have inflicted upon our economic wellbeing, a bit of graffiti is the least they deserve.
I’m not condoning these peoples other actions, may I add, but it does seem the courts take damage to property as a more serious offence than violence against people.
I'll make it Banksy-esque & we can call it 'art' as well.
.
I have not caused the economic damage of the bankers and you have apparently lost your sense of humour over my tongue in cheek comment.
Besides, you should use 'quotes'...
B+
Must do better.
.. the charge against them is "conspiracy to commit criminal damage" - from this that I obtained the quoted words.
.. the tongue in cheek is to conflate the respective damage of graffiti with economic irresponsibility.
.. lighten up.
This is a very emotive subject and one which we cannot do justice to in these columns but Barclays have funded many more dubious things than this, think South Africa and Aparteid for one! I stopped banking with them in the 80s because of this.
Rax
says...
6:06pm Thu 6 Jan 11
Still plenty of links with arms manufacturers though.
Rax
says...
6:12pm Thu 6 Jan 11
hulla baloo wrote:Almost hulla baloo, but not quite.
Once again it seems the judiciary places higher value on 'the establishment' above humans.
He gets 4 years for conspiracy to blackmail, plus another possible sentence for criminal damage, and another story here a man gets a minimum 3 years for sexual offences against a woman.
Replace the word "judiciary" with "politicians" and you're there.
The judiciary apply the law and sentence according to the guidelines they're given - they don't set them.
It's a mistake a lot of people often make, which is a shame as their anger would be more usefully directed at parliament.
Condor Man
says...
6:29pm Thu 6 Jan 11
hulla baloo
says...
8:32am Fri 7 Jan 11
Rax wrote:Point taken, but how many times do you see a judge hand out the maximum sentence he is allowed to hand out?
hulla baloo wrote: Once again it seems the judiciary places higher value on 'the establishment' above humans. He gets 4 years for conspiracy to blackmail, plus another possible sentence for criminal damage, and another story here a man gets a minimum 3 years for sexual offences against a woman.Almost hulla baloo, but not quite. Replace the word "judiciary" with "politicians" and you're there. The judiciary apply the law and sentence according to the guidelines they're given - they don't set them. It's a mistake a lot of people often make, which is a shame as their anger would be more usefully directed at parliament.
Very rarely, if at all, I would suggest.
They seem prepared to give a minimum, but not use the maximum.
Dasal says...
11:47am Thu 6 Jan 11
If these people showed as much concern for their fellow humans, the world MAY be a better place.
At the end of the day, THEY'RE ONLY ANIMALS !!