Skip navigation

Indymedia UK is a network of individuals, independent and alternative media activists and organisations, offering grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial coverage of important social and political issues

Police Intimidation Fails Against Dixie's Vintage Fur Protesters

Animal Rights Cambridge | 07.02.2011 23:11 | Animal Liberation | Repression | Social Struggles | Cambridge | World

PC Paul Adams: “I've just received complaints of you being abusive”
Activist: “What were we accused of saying?”
PC Paul Adams: “They sell fur!”

PCSO 'I'll prosecute you' Neill
PCSO 'I'll prosecute you' Neill

Police Obstruct the Highway
Police Obstruct the Highway

Them watching us, watching them, watching us!
Them watching us, watching them, watching us!


Protest video here:
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bijyHLf5eMk

On Friday 4th Feb protesters were back outside Dixie's Vintage market stall in Cambridge over their sale of fur. Activists came armed with a new petition calling on the Council to ban the sale of fur on their land, which would effectively prevent Dixie's from continuing to sell real fur items.

Public support was great as usual with plenty of signatures gathered. Amnesty International campaigners stopped by to sign the petition as well and the anti-fur activists signed theirs.

PCSO Diana Neill 7240 arrived on the scene, her attitude was abrasive and she objected to her collar number being filmed. PCSO Neill proceeded to spend her paid working hours browsing the stall and asking the prices of various items. The PCSO tried to dissuade activists from publishing her picture by claiming she would 'prosecute you' – no wonder one Council employee once referred to her as 'very stupid'!

She called in Riot squad cop PC Paul Adams 1241 who is the Neighbourhood Policing Constable for the West of the City. He started by demanding an activist's details, attempting to misuse Section 50 of the Police Reform Act – his request was refused. After standing in the middle of the road , obstructing a public highway he returned claiming that a female activist had been abusive about the stall. Pushed on what the abusive comments were he responded 'they sell fur'! Activists concur that the sale of fur is indeed offensive but in this case it was simply a statement of fact!

He later returned demanding to know when the activists were leaving. When they refused to tell him he told a female activist that he would stand in her face until she left. The video camera was then switched on and his attitude soon changed!

Adams even saw fit to tell a passer-by that the peaceful activists had links to 'terrorism'!

This sort of police intimidation will never prevent us from fighting the cruel, abusive fur trade. Please show your support by speaking to Dixie's market stall and asking them to go fur free.

Animal Rights Cambridge
- Homepage: http://animalrightscambridge.webs.com/


Comments

Hide the following 12 comments

Terrorism??!

08.02.2011 12:50

Calling protesters 'terrorists' is an insult to the victims of real terrorism! Shame on PC Adams.

CPS


Question

08.02.2011 13:04

I'm not trying to be difficult, and I obviously object to the fur trade, but is it vintage, or new fur that this place is selling? If it is vintage fur, I can't really see the point of the protest, other than a tenuous point about fur never being acceptable (which sort of misses the context of the fur that is being sold here). Basically, if the sale of this fur provides income for current producers of fur products, then of course it should be challenged, if not, then maybe its not such a big deal.

(A) Sab x


Shame on Dixies stall

08.02.2011 13:22

I will never buy a thing from them again after this!

community


@ (A) Sab

08.02.2011 13:38

The problem is that Vintage fur perpetuates the fur industry as fur becomes more acceptable and fashionable thus designers use more new fur in there collections. Some new fur is even 'laundered' via Vintage fur shops to trick consumers.

It is not a matter of an old product that is no longer produced. Instead its about perpetuating a fashion trend that begins in Vintage retailers and then leads to the sale of new items of fur. As the Vintage items become 'acceptable and fashionable' the sale of new fur rises. Today's new fur is tomorrows Vintage and the circle continues. Many Vintage retailers up and down the UK recognise this and refuse to sell fur.

We are not asking for the fur to be destroyed, many positive uses can be put to it: donations to the homeless as done by groups like PETA (as this does not perpetuate the upmarket fashion trend of using fur), donations to animal shelters to keep animals warm (after all it was their kin the fur was taken from) or used in anti-fur stunts (helping repair some of the damage done by the 'acceptable' image Vintage gives the fur trade). All we ask is it is not paraded around as a middle class fashion statement as this leads directly to the sale of new fur items.

I hope this helps answer your questions.

Animal Rights Cambridge
- Homepage: http://animalrightscambridge.webs.com/


No to all fur!

08.02.2011 14:37

We wouldn't use 'vintage' products made out of murdered humans, so why murdered animals? No fur, no compromise!

no compromise


Fur has been used for 1000s of years

08.02.2011 18:07

Even Eskimos use and and no one complains about them?

People should be left to do what they want without all this nanny state telling you what you can and can't wear.

Fox


@ Fox

08.02.2011 18:53

The fact is we don't need fur in this day and age, fur in Britain is simply a middle class status symbol. Your freedom of choice ends when it effects another – including non-human animals. Wear whatever you want but don't expect not to be criticised for a choice that effects the lives of others.

Your freedom ends where the foxes nose begins


@ Fox

08.02.2011 19:11

Tradition is a particularly poor argument to use to justify something morally. Slavery was 'traditional', gender roles are 'traditional' and class privilege is 'traditional'. There's no reason to assume something is ethical just because it is traditional.

We are not talking about Eskimos or other subsistence communities. We are talking about fur in Britain in the 21st century where there is no necessity for its use. Overtly supporting unnecessary cruelty to animals will inevitably solicit objection. We can't stop you from wearing fur but we have a right to object on behalf of the animals that suffered totally unnecessarily for your 'fashion statement'.

Animal Rights Cambridge
- Homepage: http://animalrightscambridge.webs.com


Never...

08.02.2011 19:42

...again will I buy anything from that stall, I used to like them. Nice to see people standing up against fur in our area.

Cambskid


natural life cycle

08.02.2011 23:47

>> The fact is we don't need fur in this day and age, fur in Britain is simply a middle class status symbol. Your freedom of choice ends when it effects another – including non-human animals. Wear whatever you want but don't expect not to be criticised for a choice that effects the lives of others.

You could say that about anything. Whatever you do in life, someone is always going to have an issue with it.


>> Tradition is a particularly poor argument to use to justify something morally. Slavery was 'traditional', gender roles are 'traditional' and class privilege is 'traditional'. There's no reason to assume something is ethical just because it is traditional.

Ethical is somebody elses opinions forced onto another. Paying taxes that are given to the long term unemployed is ethical because it continues to feed their problem of being dependent on the state, rather than looking after themselves. But I certainly wouldn't demand people to stop paying their taxes, or give someone grief if they did so.


>> We are not talking about Eskimos or other subsistence communities. We are talking about fur in Britain in the 21st century where there is no necessity for its use.

I think you will find that eskimos have access to all the latest guns, clothing and trucks that we have. They certainly don't have a need to use fur, but they still do - yet no one seems to have a go at them. I just think its a bit of a another pick on the middle class.


>> Overtly supporting unnecessary cruelty to animals will inevitably solicit objection. We can't stop you from wearing fur but we have a right to object on behalf of the animals that suffered totally unnecessarily for your 'fashion statement'.

What about if i used it for purely functional reasons? That way, I'm not doing it needlessly, I doing it naturally as we have done for 1000s of years. We didn't need to wear fur - ever. But we did. Why are those people allowed to and I'm not?

Fox


@ Fox

09.02.2011 01:00

We don't condone any unnecessary cruelty to animals, where there is an alternative we believe it should be used. If there is a practical alternative using the product of abuse clearly and indisputably constitutes unnecessary cruelty. Are issue is with Cambridge and UK consumers because that is our sphere of influence given that we come from these areas. If we were elsewhere in the world we would focus our action there.

Ethical views are forced on you every day: don't kill people, don't keep human slaves, don't abuse children. Your freedom is conditional upon you not harming others.

It is a simple matter of deciding if you support unnecessary cruelty or not. We don't and we will continue to propagate our viewpoint.

Animal Rights Cambridge
- Homepage: http://animalrightscambridge.webs.com


thanks for the heads up

09.02.2011 15:02

Cant believe I ever got stuff from tht place I will be avoiding now. Thanks for the heads-up guys!

ACTco


Links