Tip O' the Iceberg

It would appear if we give the vivisectors enough rope then they will hang themselves with it without the need for us to do anything. A recent comment by a leading vivisector at Oxford University is certainly putting that theory to the test!

Oxford University has once again provided the media with another so called ‘celebrity’ desperate for the limelight. The trouble is – for them, not for us – scientists of this sort have highly inflated egos and believe themselves to be intellectually infallible. This grandiosity is liable to make them deliver proclamations which might make their more street wise PR reps cringe to the soles of the squeaky-clean image they’ve been working so hard to project.

So let’s recap: only a week has passed since a highly-publicised media exercise took place in the form of a counter demonstration organised on the back of SPEAK’s monthly demonstration. The aim of said PR-driven obstacle race was to show a unity of purpose in the vivisection industry’s humanitarian quest for knowledge; to show their victimisation at the hands of brute opposing forces in the shape of dangerous animal rights protestors, and to show vivisectors as champions prepared to stand up in defence of the use of animals in medical research.

Alas for them, the cracks have already started to appear with the publication of a profile in Saturday’s Guardian, in which some astonishing remarks were attributed to a certain Prof T A, a neurosurgeon who demonstrated just how out of step animal abusers are with the rest of society . For anyone new to the website, due to the restrictions placed on us by an injunction, we’re unable to identify anyone connected with Oxford University. Therefore, by providing you with a link to the article in the Guardian we are technically breaching the injunction. However, if Oxford University wish to pursue us through the courts we would be more than happy to argue our case in a public arena.

The testing of cosmetics on animals in the UK was halted in 1998, yet it would appear that Professor T A is in favour of its return: "People talk about cosmetics being the ultimate evil. But beautifying oneself has been going on since we were cavemen. If it's proven to reduce suffering through animals tests, it's not wrong to use them." Always a vocal advocate of the continuing use of animals in research, it appears that he may have gone a step too far.

His comments, the article suggests, did not score him any brownie points with some of his colleagues (including University of London researcher Clive Page and the RDS’ very own Simon Festing) and would certainly not garner him any support amongst the British public, who are opposed to the use of animals in cosmetics testing. Indeed, it has long since been recognised that such tests aren’t necessary for us to have new products on the market; in fact, cruelty-free products are widely available and many well-known companies are adopting more ethical policies. Added to all of this, of course is the very likely fact that - unless archaeologists have discovered evidence to the contrary – animals weren’t confined in cages in pre-historic times to have noxious substances poured into their eyes…

Joking aside, what’s important in this revelation is that the Professor’s attitude is just the tip of the iceberg, and it gives us a fascinating insight into the mindset of animal abusers as a whole; in particular those at Oxford University, who, given our campaign’s focus, are the ones who interest us most at this time. Conspicuous by his presence at the counter demo a week ago was another Oxford vivisector to stand up as an apologist for vivisection and for the new Oxford research centre. Neurophysiologist Prof J S has - along with Prof T A - proved to be a bit of a loose cannon when it comes to PR. Come on – if you were part of the pro lobby, wouldn’t you be wondering quite what it was you’d unleashed? Let’s not forget, Prof J S has previously told the Oxford Mail that the monkeys he experiments on live pain-free lives (this despite having holes drilled through their skulls and deep into their brains) and live a "Life of Riley" sitting around all day "watching soap operas on TV".

So here we have two leading vivisectors, key spokespeople for the vivisection industry talking absolute rubbish, who were held up a week ago by the rest of the vivisection community as brave, selfless souls. Now it seems that there are some in their community who would prefer to distance themselves from T A – not necessarily because of the comments themselves, but because he made them in public. As they say, a week is a long time in politics and it’s even longer if you’re a media ‘star’.

This does raise an interesting question: for example, why not ask Simon Festing of the RDS if he agrees with the testing of household products on animals? Why not ask him if he disagrees with the poisoning of thousands of animals inside Huntingdon Life Sciences; and if so, why is he one of their most vocal supporters. Surely if the major cosmetics companies are able to find alternatives then why are we still killing thousands of animals so that we can have the latest toilet cleaners?

Let’s get real here for a moment: the reason why the key people in the vivisection industry are trying distance themselves from Prof T A is not because they don’t agree with him but because it has exposed them for what they really are. At the heart of this is the fact that vivisectors want to do exactly what they want to do and they dont want anyone telling them otherwise. They don’t want restrictions placed on them, and they certainly don’t want to be answerable to anyone. Well here’s a newsflash: you are answerable to us and what’s more important you are answerable to the British public. We at SPEAK will continue to expose your crimes and we promise that you WILL be made accountable.

Disclaimer: The information on this website is for the purpose of legal protest and information only. It should not be used to commit any criminal acts or harassment.