Indymedia were forced to remove several articles, the first of which was regarding a man called 'Peter Scott' who was referred to as both a SHAC activist and a hunt monitor. There were comments on this article attempting to validity it which were claimed to be from the Bristol Hunt Saboteurs. Having spoken to the other hunt saboteurs it was exposed that these comments were not made by any member of the group. Not only this, but no one was aware of anyone by the name of Peter Scott.

The following day another story was posted up about several other raids in relation to Astrazeneca protests by SHAC activists in Bristol and Bath. Having spoken to those involved in these demonstrations, no one is aware of any of these raids happening. Not only this, but the article spoke of an injunction held by Astrazeneca, who do not possess any injunction against any activists.

It is clear that none of these stories were truthful, which leaves only the question of why they were posted. The first article spoke a lot of financial matters, saying the police had taken lists of donators to animal rights organisations. The general consensus amongst activists is that this was an attempt to deter people from donating to animal rights organisations, creating the idea that it is unsafe personally, and that the funds are being used for criminal activity. This is not the case. As the raids didn't happen, no information has been jeopardised, and there is nothing to suggest funds are misappropriated by any animal rights organisations.

We would like to thank Indymedia for looking into the posts and removing them quickly. The animal rights movement has faced many attacks like this in the past and has survived everyone because we as long as animals are exploited and treated as products people will be there to speak up for them, no matter what is thrown at them. Until all are free!