| Government overreach to ban legal protests is a stain on democracy 14:03 - Feb 5 with 509 views | BlacknGoldnBlue |
As someone who has protested outside animal testing laboratories and their suppliers, I am deeply concerned about the continued use of animals in regulatory testing that lacks scientific validity. Approximately 93% of drugs that pass the animal testing phase fail in human trials due to major differences in our biological makeup. We now have an abundance of non-animal methods (NAMs) that provide more accurate results; however, "Big Pharma" continues to insist on animal testing to protect their financial interests.
The Labour government of 1997 (and their pledges dating back to 1994) promised to ban animal testing but regressed once in power. Similarly, the current Labour government made manifesto promises to phase out animal testing, yet they now offer only a slow transition with no definitive end date.
In Cambridgeshire, MBR Acres breeds beagle puppies for these experiments. The majority of these puppies do not see their first birthday, as they are killed once the experiments are concluded; some are even bled to death so their blood can be sold. These animals have no enrichment during their short lives and are even trained to wear masks for inhalation testing or to offer their paws for injections.
A group of protesters has been legally stationed outside MBR Acres for four years, living in tents and using social media to highlight the activities of the facility and its suppliers. MBR Acres is a subsidiary of Marshall BioResources, an American company owned by Scott Marshall. On a recent visit to the UK, Marshall met with Sir Patrick Vallance, who was chosen by Labour to oversee the transition away from animal testing. A Freedom of Information (FOI) request revealed a summary of their meeting:
"Please could you box the attached letter, which follows today's meeting with MBR Acres CEO and summarises the impact of protests on their company, and the devastating consequences on the Life Sciences Sector and wider-health ecosystem in the UK, if they fail. As ever, we appreciate all your help and support in progressing the necessary legislation."
Labour has since introduced the Public Order Act 2023 (Interference with Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2024, which reclassified "life sciences infrastructure" as protected sites. This places laboratories and breeding facilities on the same list as roads, railways, airports, harbours, and power stations. Despite opposition in the House of Lords and an abstention by the Conservatives in the House of Commons, it was passed into law.
Consequently, any action—online or in person—that "interferes" with animal testing facilities or their suppliers is now a serious criminal offence. MBR Acres has already spent over £4 million attempting to stop legal protests and has successfully lobbied the government to change the law to suit their interests. This collusion between the government, corporations, and the elite is a foul betrayal of democracy and the right to protest. |  |
| |  |
| Government overreach to ban legal protests is a stain on democracy on 16:44 - Feb 5 with 404 views | PhilsAngels |
Amazing what power and influence large corporations and money can do to governments. See any number of threads on this site. Corruption is rife and keeping the status quo to ensure money continues to stay where it already is no small task |  |
| |
| Government overreach to ban legal protests is a stain on democracy on 16:48 - Feb 5 with 390 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
It is worrying when any government overreaches on laws limiting rights to protest.
Regardless of whether we agree or disagree on an issue, there should always be a right to peaceful protest.
At the same time, there are issues with obstruction, damage, incitement to violence, etc, etc that I understand need legislating against. |  |
| |
| Government overreach to ban legal protests is a stain on democracy on 17:13 - Feb 5 with 334 views | DJR |
Thanks for highlighting something that had completely passed me by.
For anyone interested, here's a link to the debate in the Lords on a motion declining to give approval to the order..
https://hansard.parliament.uk/
It is interesting to note that 62 voted to decline approval of the order, and there is some suggestion that this isn't the sort of additional infrastructure that was in mind when the 2023 Act was passed. [Post edited 5 Feb 17:29]
|  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
