[IMC-UK-Features] Feature proposal: HLS Exposed - Again! SHAC To Shakedown Financial Investors In The City

[Richard Braude]

there's a wave of student occupations in solidarity with gaza;
thousands of people are losing their jobs across the country, with
many taking strike action; the government is being publicly accused of
being implicit in torture...animal lib (etc) has had a huge amount of
indymedia articles recently, including middle column space. For my
part, I don't consider this event appropriate for middle column space
at this time.

R.

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Animal Rep <animalrep at hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Same link -
> https://we.riseup.net/imc-uk/shac-to-shakedown-financial-investors-in-the-city
>
> For the same topics as before; SHAC, Animal Liberation & Health. As
> startpage special if possible for a day or so? Then as topic specials until
> the event if thats ok, and maybe again on the front page (a few days before
> the event) if this is agreed to be acceptable by Indymedia admins. Hope that
> makes sense, I realise its probably rare or unknown for articles to be
> startpage twice, but I think it makes sense as the article is effectively
> two headlines??
>
> Garcon du Monde: "i'm afraid that i'm still not happy with this article -
> or, in fact, many of the shac articles."
>
> If you had a problem with previous articles, you should of raised them when
> they were proposed. Doing so now is only provocative to the issue at hand -
> this article.
>
> Garcon du Monde: "thus, while i would prefer using different terms from
> "vivisectors" or "vivisection", i think it would be more balanced if there
> was mention of the alternative phrasing, "animal experimentation"."
>
> I could always use animal research to reference vivisection, but it would be
> only further desensitize the nature of the issue. You could
> always call warmongers, or arms dealers 'weapons manufactors', but it only
> has the same effect, strange how that isn't an issue though. I don't mind
> using desensitized terms, but I do prefere including the terms that
> reference the subject how it is. Rape is commonly referenced as sexual
> assault, but I think its unfair to purely use the term. I put in "animal
> experimentation" just to make you happy though.
>
> Garcon du Monde:  "what was overlooked, though, was that all the other links
> in the article were either reports on indymedia or links to a single
> website: www.shac.net - and it was to this which i was referring."
>
> I'm not sure why as many articles have entirely indymedia links, or a
> single campaign and indy links.
>
> Garcon du Monde: "the "scientific facts" presented by shac [3] are
> essentially quoted in isolation, meaning that it is very hard to interpret
> them and to what extent they are true. the only links to any scientific
> references are provided on the "scientific intro" page [4] and date from
> 1989, 1978 and 1998 respectively. Incidentally, the last (from 1998) most
> likely references an articles in the JAMA edition published on the 15 april
> 1998 (the shac site states 14/4/98) which looked at adverse drug reactions
> in humans [5] - and no mention at all about anything related to animal
> experimentation."
>
> Most facts are presented in isolotion, however I understand your concern and
> have removed the link, but not the claim, as within the documentary this is
> explained. I'm not entirely sure which reference you are quoting, but its
> quite obvious that the reference to human trials with adverse drug reactions
> would be following animal testing, this is why it would be relevant, and
> another source (seperate from the pro-vivisection JAMA publication) would
> show this, as per usual. If there isn't the mention of micro-dosing prior to
> the drug, which is entirely relevant to the full-dosage trial failers, then
> it would of been mentioned as the preminilary studies. Keeping the
> related animal studies out of the picture is the norm, as they are deemed
> "irrelevant" to the human studies, only necessary prior to them to gain a
> defence lawsuit.
>
> Garcon du Monde:  "moreover, this is not even an article about something
> that has happened: it is a glorified advertisement for a forth-coming
> demonstration."
>
> Something hasn't happened? The state tried to shut down SHAC by imprisoning
> seven individuals for 50 years and they failed - miserably. The march and
> protest clearly shows this, especially when the police have had to allow it
> to happen. Secondly, didn't the Carnival Against The Arms Trade and Shut ITT
> articles [1] that promoted events also fall into the category or promoting a
> forth-coming demonstration? I was glad to see the glorified advert myself.
> However, despite this being a relevant issue, its now not relevant to the
> article.
>
> Garcon du Monde: "indymedia has in the past been very clear that we do not
> promote a particular political ideology... i think we should stick with this
> methodology."
>
> As Chris said, Indymedia promotes a variety of ideologies. To name a
> few; anti-war, anti-racism, anti-militarism, no borders (on the migrantion
> page for example), ocean defence and social struggles, there are even topic
> pages for the ideologies. That's why we're all here I thought?
>
> [1] http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/actions/2008/edo/
>
>
> ________________________________
> Share your photos with Windows Live Photos - Free Try it Now!
> --
> Indymedia United Kollektives editorial mid-column features
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-uk-features
>