ANIMAL FORUM

On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 00:53:55 +0000, Grey Squirrel
wrote:


Thats CONservation hooliganism for you. This is why we must question
the motives of these tabletop conservationists in the RSPB, SNH,
Woodland Trust etc. They certainly have no interest in the animals,
thats for sure!

On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 22:37:52 +0000, Geoff
wrote:


Exactly!

I understand this post was written by Professor Acorn a distinguished
squirrel academic ;-)


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

In article , Geoff
wrote:

They were certainly present on the shores of Post Glacial Lake Pickering,
Yorkshire, in the paleolithic, roughly 6k years bp. See the Seamer Carr
excavation reports from the early 80s.


Thats Pete not checking sources again. He never lets facts get in the way
of a troll.

Cheerio,

--

On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 23:33:21 +0000, amacmil304@aol.com wrote:


From Nutkins, Illinois. No doubt. lol

Looks like they are closing in on pete


Man charged over farm blackmail


http://tinyurl.com/t4rcg
Darley Oaks farm was targeted by activists
A man has been charged with blackmailing two employees of a guinea pig farm
which became the target of animal rights activists.
The 27-year-old from Colchester in Essex was charged at Stafford Police
Station with two counts of blackmail.

The charges relate to threatening letters sent to two workers at Darley Oaks
Farm in Newchurch, near Burton-on-Trent, Staffs, in 2003.

The man, who is on police bail, is due at Burton magistrates on 5 December.

http://skilful.com/

Proven:

Government risked the lives of the ENTIRE UK population.

Links to skilful.com statements are recorded on Internet Wayback
Machine.

vCJD and Mad Cow problems are said, by this and prior governments, to
be only clear in hindsight. This is total rubbish, it does not require
retrospective knowledge. Common-sense dictates the problems were all
too obvious. What do you think?

For example, the Government had denied vCJD could be carried in blood
- calling the risk only theoretical - so I warned pre-August 2000:

Blood is the MOST obvious transport for this disease. Even if it were
not, it would still be a possibility, therefore the word theoretical
is totally superfluous. Used to lessen significance - to avoid
prosecution. In other words, SPIN.


August 2002, two years later:

BBC News quote: The studys authors suggest the risk of vCJD
transmission through blood may be appreciable where the government
had previously described it as theoretical

Professor Hugh Pennington, of Aberdeen University, said: The worry is
that there are more people out there incubating the disease.

We dont know how many people are going to come down with vCJD.

They took inadequate precaution, throughout the whole episode - from
the beginning. They risked the lives of UK population. IMO these
people are guilty of manslaughter - 114 victims in the UK so far
(January 2002 figures).

BBC News quote: Call for national CJD tests - December 2002
A Nobel Prize-winning scientist has reportedly said all Britons should
be tested for variant CJD. Professor Stan Prusiner, who discovered the
cause of mad cow disease (BSE), said the government should also be
testing livestock. Speaking on a visit to Britain from his native US,
he claimed thousands of infected cows and sheep were still entering
the human food chain.

Yet again, I gave another warning pre-August 2000 - over two years
earlier:

WARNING: Beef may still kill. Beef from animals older than 30 months
is illegal to sell. Isnt something not taken into account? Common
sense really. Cattle can pass BSE onto offspring, without signs shown.
Recent news has shown a mother pass vCJD onto child. It seems very
stupid then to sell beef at all - even animals under 30 months.
Assurances aside, it still has infection. You will not find me feeding
beef to my family. This has to be one of the most terrible ways to
watch your children die.

BBC News quote: Human BSE cases higher than thought - November 2002
Scientists have evidence BSE may also be responsible for cases of
sporadic CJD. BBC Newsnight: Susan Watts (Science Editor) But
perhaps the most chilling aspects of todays research has had the
least attention... worrying implications for the safety of Britains
national blood supply. John Collinge (Institute of Neurology)
confirmed that potentially ten times the number of CJD carriers exist.

First Canadian man dies of mad cow: August 2002
He contracted the disease while visiting Britain.

First Italian woman dies of mad cow: February 2002
This 22 year olds death appears to be from imported cattle.

Definition of RISK (O.E.D):
To hazard, endanger; to expose to the chance of injury or loss.

Keyword in that phrase is CHANCE. Fact - the level of risk was
UNKNOWN - guessed at, lied about and then proven wrong. It is a lie to
say it was calculated risk - they had nothing directly comparable to
calculate against. Calculated risk is only with something known e.g.
russian roulette - 6 chambers 1 bullet. They took a CHANCE with
everyones life. Ignore semantics and spin they use to protect
themselves, How were we to know this terrible disease that crossed
species into cows would kill humans. - They might not have known this
for definite - but they knew there was a CHANCE - a RISK to public
health.

Overriding fact: put peoples lives in danger, *whatever the level of
risk*, you take responsibility if you kill them. Decisions were
entirely financially motivated. As for the spin of preventing public
alarm; hogwash - nobody died of alarm in egg scare, it saved lives
(although it should have been handled better).

They gamble with our lives, to save cost of replacing cattle stocks.

Rubbish has been spoken about risk being in most we do. Yes, but this
is informed risk, we choose. Or essential - like crossing the road -
the pathetic example heard more than once. This is part of the
diversionary tactics of spin - to misdirect with obvious truths e.g.
in BSE Inquiry (26 Oct 2000) said, Any who have come to our report
hoping to find VILLAINS or SCAPEGOATS should go away disappointed. Of
course nobody wants scapegoat, they want those RESPONSIBLE.

Risk is not just about probability - which is what government spin
would have you believe. Risk has two main elements: 1) the probability
that something will go wrong 2) the seriousness of consequences if it
does.

What has to be appreciated, what has been downplayed - most important
is the *seriousness of consequences*. In this case, the most dreadful
imaginable. Not simple food poisoning, this is far more serious. It is
a long suffering death for the victim and hell for their family.

Which is worse - a 1 in 10 chance your child gets tummy bug sickness
for a week OR having 1 in 1000 chance your child has year long
lingering deteriorative death?

It is most important to note - whilst it is true that government did
not know the odds - they certainly knew the serious consequences.

They took this risk with entire population of the UK. Could the
seriousness of consequence be any worse? Risk should also be fully
informed, absolutely understood, voluntary, a benefit for undertaking,
and avoided if unnecessary.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Same again with GM?

Will Government risk the lives of ENTIRE UK population again?

Michael Meacher was likely sacked from Cabinet as environment minister
for raising legitimate concerns about GM food. Blair could hardly have
gone for GM with him in Cabinet - what with pro-GM Lord Sainsbury
donations and various big business interests involved.

Meacher said the tests that had been done were scientifically
vacuous. Government had rubbished one report that warned of
possible negative effects.

Quotes from BBC News: He told the paper the only human GM trial
commissioned by the Food Standards Agency found genetically modified
DNA did transfer to bacteria in the human gut. Many scientists had
denied this was possible. Some substances produced by GM technology
had already been found to cause allergic reactions, he said.

Mr Meacher said although it was claimed GM products were rigorously
tested, in fact it only amounted to considering whether a crop was
similar in composition to a non-GM crop. This is justified under the
rubric of `substantial equivalence, which was originally a marketing
term, and is scientifically vacuous, Mr Meacher said. It wholly
misses the point that health concerns are focused, not on known
compounds, but on the effects of the GM technology which are
unpredictable. He said it was really extraordinary there had so far
been virtually no independent studies of the health effects of GM.

Should another disaster happen - Blair will use the feeble excuse, GM
foods were rigorously tested and we used the best scientific advice
available.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HEALTH WARNING - Is your operation really necessary?



THIS COULD BE YOU
This was me a couple of days after an emergency operation. A second op
- the first was for normal everyday hiatus hernia. The surgeon said he
did not know what went wrong. I have since had third non-emergency op.
The tubes are a lot worse under the covers. I was trying to smile for
my 11 year old daughter, Faye, taking the picture.

I was thinking this is going to be the last time she saw me.

This is a personal attempt to warn the true danger of elective
surgery. In the UK it is unlikely to be as safe as you are told. I
know - the operation that led to the above was, even after this,
recorded as successful (seen documentation), because I have no reflux.
This second op went wrong also. Amongst other things, it damaged nerve
bundles. I would imagine that was also recorded as success - as my
life was saved.

Since started, years ago, my warning has been proven true in a report
published in the British Medical Journal. Also, the recent World
Health Organization report published October 2002 is further proof and
was quite damning. The figures on problems are still under estimated
more...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------