Definition Of Pondlife...

Shadow Leader

At the Start
Joined
Nov 9, 2003
Messages
9,884
Pondlife = the cowards who have been wagering this sick vendetta against the Hall family in the name of "animal rights".

Taken from the BBC website -


Targeted guinea pig farm closes 

The Hall family said they would return to traditional farming
A farm that has been breeding guinea pigs for medical research for more than 30 years is to stop after intimidation by animal rights activists.
The family-run Darley Oaks Farm in Newchurch, Staffordshire, has been hit by a six-year campaign of abuse.

The owners and people connected with the firm have received death threats.

The family said they hoped the decision would prompt the return of the body of their relative Gladys Hammond, whose remains were stolen from a churchyard.

The remains were taken from her grave in nearby Yoxall in October.

Mrs Hammond, who was buried in St Peter's churchyard seven years ago, was the mother-in-law of Christopher Hall, part-owner of the farm.

In a statement, a close relative of Mrs Hammond, who declined to be named, said there was now no reason why her body could not be returned.

"Gladys was a relative of the Halls by marriage only and had no involvement in guinea pig breeding.

"She was a kind, gentle country lady who loved animals. She was also friendly, generous and loving and always put her family first."

The Hall family have been subjected to hate mail, malicious phone calls, hoax bombs and arson attacks.

A spokeswoman for David Hall and Partners confirmed that the business, where several thousand guinea pigs are reared, was to stop breeding animals for medical research.

The Hall family is now expected to concentrate on the arable side of the business.

Campaigners who have legitimately picketed the farm over recent years said they would continue their protest until the guinea pig breeding operation officially closed at the end of the year.

Johnny Holmes, a spokesman for Stop the Newchurch Guinea Pigs, said: "This is the most fantastic day of my life.

"It's a victory for the animals and it's a fundamental victory for the animal rights movement.

"Ideally, I wish they would close down today and hand them over. We want those guinea pigs out."

In a statement, the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI ) expressed its best wishes to the family and said their decision was "regrettable but understandable".

Director of the ABPI Philip Wright said guinea pigs had been essential in research into respiratory disease resulting in breakthroughs in the development of new medicines.

"The activities of a few animal rights extremists have placed impossible pressure on those going about their legitimate business," he said.

"While animal rights extremists are likely to be only one factor in the final decision, it does underline the need for greater protection of those individuals and companies targeted."

David Bird, from Staffordshire Police, told BBC Radio 4 it had been impossible to give complete protection because the campaign had been so widespread.

"We have had some success in dealing with those responsible. What I would say is that this closure is not a victory for anybody," he said.

"This campaign has done absolutely nothing to further the cause of animal rights."

Rod Harvey supplied fuel to the farm and endured four years of abuse from activists before he was forced to cease trading with the Halls.

The 63-year-old businessman said he received threatening letters, including one accusing him of being a paedophile which was then sent to a number of people he knew.

"In December 2003 a brick came through the window of my front door, hitting my foot and cutting my hand," he said.

"In view of what they (the Hall family) and their staff have had to put up with I'm not surprised that they have stopped breeding guinea pigs.

"I just feel so angry that these animal rights activists have won."
 
Why do people dig up and steal corpses in the name of animal rights?

Why can't they just be honest with themselves and do it in the name of untreatable madness?
 
Show me someone with a cause and I'll show you a hypocrite. How many of these people mistreat their children, abuse their neighbours, abort unborn children, steal from department stores, would keep any overpayment from an automatic teller, etc.?

The desecrating of a grave was as low a stoop as I can imagine.
 
Absolutely Mo - and you're spot on Phil - people who would even consider desecrating a grave have to be mentally ill, not to mention sick as hell.

Also, talking of hypocrites - I hope that the now-fashionably growing bands of animal rights activists (and this includes the peaceful ones) don't seek or use any type of medical treatment or medicine that have been developed through testing on animals if they are ill. I wonder, is it worth asking them if they'd mind standing in for the guinea-pigs for vital research purposes?
 
Originally posted by Shadow Leader@Aug 24 2005, 03:49 PM
Also, talking of hypocrites - I hope that the now-fashionably growing bands of animal rights activists (and this includes the peaceful ones) don't seek or use any type of medical treatment or medicine that have been developed through testing on animals if they are ill. I wonder, is it worth asking them if they'd mind standing in for the guinea-pigs for vital research purposes?
While I don't condone the extreme actions of these people I think it's a bit of a joke to assume that these animals were being used for the greater good. More likely they were puffing away on cigarettes all day or having cosmetics applied to their eyes. As far as medicine goes, the drug companies aren't particularly interested in finding cures for disease. They'd much rather find drugs that eased the symptoms of the disease thus tying the sufferer into purchasing their drugs for life.

Any cause, justified or not, will attract a psycho element with their own agenda. Does that mean e.g. that Catholics should just have accepted second class citizenship within Northern Ireland, Palestinians should just allow the Israelis to take their land or that black South Africans should've bowed to a minority white government? As far as hypocrisy goes, there's a fair amount of it on this thread.
 
Hang on a second Tom - those guinea pigs were used for medical research, not just flogged to pharmaceutical companies for they're employees to have a jolly with them. In your above post you appear to have overlooked the government institutions, the universities & medical organisations constantly doing vital research whilst searching for cures for diseases & conditions. Diseases like cancer, heart disease, AIDS, genetic disorders [I could go on forever listing examples] are constantly being researched in the quest to find cures. I know that the Medical Research Council or the Institue for Animal Health don't test on animals for the sake of it - they are constantly researchig diseases. As for "dripping cosmetics into their eyes" - these animals were bred for medical research, not cosmetic research; that is a completely different ball game & one that should be outlawed.

What do you think about my points viz-a-viz animal welfare groups wanting to outlaw animal testing for medical research seeking medical treatment & using medicines that were developed through animal testing? You do not think that is hypocrisy of the worst kind? As for hypocrisy on this thread - you'll have to help me out here, what are you talking about?
 
I've been following this issue in Staffs since the outset, and I regret that the Hall's have finally been obliged to discontinue their lawful business as a result of the most horrendous intimidation and violence. The body-stealing of Gladys has plumbed a new depth of repulsiveness. I also note that the BBC website has neglected to mention the very real threats made to people with just a peripheral connection to the Halls. Milkmen, postmen, grocers are just some who have been forced through intimidation to discontinue any social intercourse with the family.

It needs to be emphasized that the Halls were citizens engaged in, and going about, their lawful business. Whether anyone agrees or disagrees with the fundamental nature of that business in not the issue. What the Hall's were engaged in was totally legitimate while the animal extremists actions were patently illegal. However, to the best of my knowledge, not one single solitary "peaceful protestor" was prepared to unconditionally condemn what their kindred spoirits in ALF were doing. As always, with these people, there seems to be more consideration given to the welfare of animals than to the rights of their fellow man. We have seen similar blinkered reasoning in other instances (Huntingdon Life Sciences, et al). In the country in which I live I have witnessed at first hand the hooliganism and vandalism perpetrated by the animal lovers. ............. farmers barns burnt down, tacks spread on cattle grazing fields because farmers had allowed open coursing.

Certainly, the animal activists are entitled to voice their views, but when spoken protest becomes intimidatory and violent then they merit no platform whatsoever.
A sad day not only for the Hall's but for democracy in general.
 
I really think it's a necessary evil that animals have to be used for this purpose as without it how are we going to cure the ills of people and find an antidote to these major diseases as posted above by S/L........
 
Originally posted by Shadow Leader@Aug 25 2005, 11:22 AM
Hang on a second Tom - those guinea pigs were used for medical research, not just flogged to pharmaceutical companies for they're employees to have a jolly with them.
Always assuming that was the case Dom (I certainly wouldn't take it as gospel), so what? The protesters don't think we have the right to use these animals for any kind of research and that is what they were protesting about.

Would they be hypocrites if they accepted medical treatments that came about as the result of animal research?

Well put it this way, if you were dying from a disease that Dr. Joseph Mengele had found a cure for as a result of inhuman experiments on Jewish children would you accept the treatment? If the answer's yes, does that mean you think it's OK to experiment on Jewish children? Of course it doesn't. The fact is, any treatment discovered as a result of animal experiments would probably have been discovered sooner or later anyway so, it would seem neurotic in the extreme if the aforementioned protesters were to state that they and their ancestors would never partake of any medical help that had its' roots in animal research.
 
I understand that there is a research centre in Wilts where scientists are destroying rabbits in an attempt to find a cure for vegetarianism.

This struck me as somewhat ironic.
 
Neurotic???? Nah, honey, the word you're looking for is h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-i-c-a-l!! ;)

As for Mengele; had he actually discovered cures for diseases rather then simply being a sick, sadistic bully who got his kicks out of conducting his "research" on children then your comparison ma be relevant. As he didn't & he was - your example is utterly irrelevant! It also smacks to me of the creation of double standards on behalf of the activists too - "I think carrying out medical research on animals is evil & should be stopped but yes please, can I have this treatment [that was tested on animals] to cure my dose of the clap[insert disesase/condition], please?" :lol:

[editor's note - I have no idea whether animals were used in researching treaments of the clap before the pedants kick in to tell me otherwise - it was an example!!]
 
We had a problem with rabbits I got rid of them by giving them my ham toastie, followed immediately by my cheese toastie and finally my tomato-and-onion toastie.

They died from mixin-ma-toasties.
 
Originally posted by Shadow Leader@Aug 25 2005, 01:31 PM
As for Mengele; had he actually discovered cures for diseases rather then simply being a sick, sadistic bully who got his kicks out of conducting his "research" on children then your comparison ma be relevant. As he didn't & he was - your example is utterly irrelevant!
The question may have been hypothetical but it was hardly irrelevant (unlike your avoidance of the question).
 
Of course it was irrelevant, Tom!! In asking it you were inferring that there are a load of medical treatments/medicines out there that were developed through the use of sadistic experiments on children which is patently untrue! Anyone can make up hypothetical situations which hold no relevance - I expected better of you! :D

As for avoidance of questions, you have not commented on whether 1) animal rights activists (such as I suspect from your comments your sympathies lie in this area) would be willing to themselves be used as guinea pigs or 2) on whether you (assuming you also believe medical research testing on animals should be abolished, which I strongly suspect you do) yourself avail yourself of these medical treatments or medicines that have been developed in the very way you find so abhorrent? I only asked at least twice, after all..... ;)
 
Originally posted by Shadow Leader@Aug 25 2005, 01:31 PM
you have not commented on whether 1) animal rights activists (such as I suspect from your comments your sympathies lie in this area) would be willing to themselves be used as guinea pigs
Yes. They do.
 
Originally posted by Shadow Leader@Aug 25 2005, 02:31 PM
Of course it was irrelevant, Tom!! In asking it you were inferring that there are a load of medical treatments/medicines out there that were developed through the use of sadistic experiments on children which is patently untrue!
How would you know that Dom? You or I have absolutely no idea what Mengel or anyone else has discovered through such experiments. Have you used any drugs that were maybe made safer due to research into the drug thalidomide? If so you benefited from research done using human guinea pigs, something that happens all the time.

To take your argument to the extreme - Should animal rights protesters commit suicide because their ancestors ate meat? Does living in America imply you agreed with the treatment of native indians? Should I emigrate because I'm against colonialism and slavery? By your thinking, the only way animal rights protesters wouldn't be hypocrites is if they supported some sort of Khmer Rouge "year zero" type scenario.

Your outrage at these "good people" having to close their business is touching. As far as I'm concerned fuck them. I'm quite prepared to live (or die) without any medical discoveries that would've come about had their "farm" remained open.
 
As far as I'm concerned fuck them. I'm quite prepared to live (or die) without any medical discoveries that would've come about had their "farm" remained open.

I wouldn't have made it to age ten without drugs developed through animal testing. Those same drugs have since been modified and made more effective due to the results observed in me and many others. Fuck the guinea pigs.
 
Originally posted by Gareth Flynn@Aug 25 2005, 07:24 PM
As far as I'm concerned fuck them. I'm quite prepared to live (or die) without any medical discoveries that would've come about had their "farm" remained open.

I wouldn't have made it to age ten without drugs developed through animal testing. Those same drugs have since been modified and made more effective due to the results observed in me and many others. Fuck the guinea pigs.
Exactly, this post sums up the augument perfectly. And if i ever encounter any of these Animal Rights cocknobbers at a race meeting they`ll get a few choice words. Cnuts.
 
Originally posted by Gareth Flynn@Aug 25 2005, 07:24 PM
I wouldn't have made it to age ten without drugs developed through animal testing. Those same drugs have since been modified and made more effective due to the results observed in me and many others. Fuck the guinea pigs.
Your assumption is the drugs wouldn't have been discovered without animal experiments (always assuming they were anyway).
 
The guy that discovered the helicobacter bug (that led to the cure for many ulcers) swallowed the bug and then tested the drugs on himself. He would've been more likely to get a bullet in the head from the pharmaceutical companies than any assistance.

People's blind faith in drugs and medical practitioners astounds me anyway. When it comes down to it, they're still peddling the same penicillen based pills they were handing out 40 years ago. Superbugs are on the increase because of the overuse of said pills. I think I could safely say I'd be in a healthier state now if I'd never seen the inside of a doctor's surgery. That probably applies to a lot of people.
 
To take your argument to the extreme - Should animal rights protesters commit suicide because their ancestors ate meat? Does living in America imply you agreed with the treatment of native indians? Should I emigrate because I'm against colonialism and slavery? By your thinking, the only way animal rights protesters wouldn't be hypocrites is if they supported some sort of Khmer Rouge "year zero" type scenario.

I give up, Tom!! :lol: I think you're taking this far too literally - it's a simple, directly related situation I'm talking about after all (ie animal rights protesters picketing about animals used in medical research but when it suits them they'll use those same drugs/treatment); not some obscure, tenuous link to something that may or may not have happened long ago in the past!

I'm with Gareth/Euro on this one.
 
Gareth.
You said "They wouldn't have been risked on humans until their side-effects were known"

There are thousands of deaths every year because the side effects have not been disclosed.

There is a rather large company (USA) in a bit of trouble as we speak.
 
Back
Top