Nottinghamshire Indymedia



> UK Indymedia
> Global Indymedia

> Guidelines
> Chatroom
> About Us
> Security

> Projects
> On Ya Mobile
> Local Weather

Support Us

We are an all volunteer collective and receive no regular funding. Please consider donating.

Local Events

This events wire is no longer being updated. Please use the new site to publicise events.

More local events on Veggies/Sumac Diary

Freedom of Information

Search archives


Animal Liberation
Climate Chaos
Energy Crisis
Free Spaces
Ocean Defence
Other Press
Social Struggles
Terror War
Workers' Movements


South Coast

Other UK IMCs
Bristol/South West
Northern Indymedia


satellite tv


estrecho / madiaq
la plana
northern england
nottingham imc
united kingdom

Latin America
chile sur
cmi brasil
cmi sucre
puerto rico


South Asia

United States
hudson mohawk
kansas city
minneapolis/st. paul
new hampshire
new jersey
new mexico
new orleans
north carolina
north texas
rogue valley
saint louis
san diego
san francisco
san francisco bay area
santa barbara
santa cruz, ca
tampa bay
united states
western mass

West Asia


fbi/legal updates
mailing lists
process & imc docs

Convicted Animal Rights `Grave Digger` Speaks Out

A Newchurch campaign regular | 17.05.2006 17:07 | Animal Liberation | Birmingham

Four activists from the West Midlands were last week sentenced to a total of 40 years behind bars after pleading guilty to conspiracy to blackmail Newchurch Farm in Staffordshire, where guinea pigs were bred before being sent off to their deaths in labs across Europe. Despite the guilty pleas, all four deny any involvement in the infamous `grave robbery` of Gladys Hammond`s remains, and the police have admitted that they don`t have any evidence to link any of them directly to that offence. But that didn`t stop the judge passing sentence as if there were absolutely no doubt!! The following statement by our good friend Jonny Ablewhite, one of the alleged `grave diggers`, was mostly written prior to his sentencing, and part written just after. It reveals much about how the Newchurch Four have effectively been stitched up!!



Just a few notes to clarify my current pedicament. They haven't cut our throats yet!

The Judge's indication of 12 years was based upon information presented to him by the police and the CPS only. This was given in the form of a case summary and a "schedule" of events-a chronological diary of every 'criminal' action beginning with the 1999 liberation. By inference I was tenuously implicated in virtually every action - to the point where it became tiresome to read my name, yet again! Such inference was often so transparent as to be laughable e.g identified as "main protestor" (whatever that means - tallest? baldest?) at demos and therefore held responsible for damage done there 2 months later. This specious information would have been presented to the Jury and the inference it stirred up would have led to a guilty verdict - if I had chosen to go to trial. This is what my legal team insisted. This "schedule" (and the gamut of inferences it encouraged) were of course a massive and engineered untruth. But, let's not kid ourselves; the truth was absolutely irrelevant in this case. My mitigation on May 11th could go someway to stratify the case against me but I fear the Judge has already chosen to believe the vaste wave of untruths.

I cannot stress enough how important such 'inferences' are in cases of this ilk. They act as mortar and turn unconnected, nonsensical, irrelevant, inconclusive and flimsy circumstantial suggestion into seeming forensic proof! Combine 'inference' with the outrageous change in the preconviction disclosure law, throw in masses of media-circus supposition and lies and inconsequential inference can - and clearly has - led to lengthy prison sentences. It is a travesty but a grim reality we must all heed. If I wasn't about to spend umpteen years in jail, I would be in cynical hysterics!

It was made absolutely clear to me by my barrister that if I didn't comply with a guilty plea then I would receive the maximum 14 years after trial, irrespective of the truth. The CPS had "bottlenecked" so much "evidence" during the preceding 6 months and finally released it to create deliberate time limitations. Ultimately after the Judge's heinous indication, I was given one hour to consider my fate. The only logic my Barrister could provide was that a guilty plea would spare me the full 14 years. Any attempt to vindicate my case through a trial was considered by him a hopeless task. My only hope then was that a guilty plea with a "Basis of Plea" would leave me with some vindication. Yet the 'Basis of Plea' was rejected by the CPS, deliberately.

A "Basis of Plea" is an opportunity to outline the parameter of your "guilt" and you should be sentenced and judged accordingly. It would have restored dignity, halted the scapegoating process and detached me from being effectively sentenced for a whole host of actions I was clearly not responsible for, including the desecration.

This, however, would not have served the purposes of the Staffordshire police and the CPS. They would not have been able to conjure up and feed information about an all-encompassing "conspiracy" of mythological proportions to a salivating, voyeuristic and hysterical mass media. They know that such hysteria will off-set recent disasters involving animal tested medication.

So much of this has been purposeful. Here's why. The labelling and sterotyping of individuals as "leaders" of 'organised criminal networks' is a contrived political and semantic tool. It can be used to justify such 'umbrella' conspiracy charges and outrageous sentences. It can also be used to 'infer' that these "leaders" are representative of the entire animal rights protest culture - by demonising one, you demonise all. Compassionate protest and moral aims and arguments are then marginalised by the mass media from the public will and sentiment. This portrayal is then used to convince the public that all political and moral indignation is the habit of such 'extremist' networks. The public can then be cajoled and dissuaded from speaking out or protesting themselves for fear of being similarly demonised. It is tacit but tactical indoctrination. How WE disrupt, interrupt and destabilise this process will be fundamental to our future success as moral activists within a mediascape of stereotypes and scaremongering.

None of the police involved in the inordinantly expensive police operations in Newchurch would admit the reality that there was NEVER an SNGP leadership hierarchy dictating and controlling "criminality". Scattered bands of non-hierarchical, decentered, automonous individuals clearly functions outside of their own operational experience and logic. To admit this reality - that I cannot be held responsible for six years of action would be to admit that there remains an untold sum of "unsolved crimes" in that area. This is despite the millions of pounds of tax payers money ploughed into their investigations. To admit that reality - that I was not the "controller" of "criminal activity" - would have deeply affected their case, their pride, their media intentions and their promotional oppurtunities. It would also mean such lengthy prison terms are wholly unjustifiable.

Yet the prospect of a long term sentence is clearly now a reality. But, of course, I have always used the true terror and pain of tortured animals as a comparative tool to measure how much I should complain - NOT MUCH! I am well fed (thanks to the VPSG) and the visits and letters from family, friends, Earth and Animal Rights activists have been inspirational. Thank you for your time and support.

It is clear how Judge Pert had absolutely no interest in reality. All credit and all mitigation was ignored. The fact We categorically stated we had no involvement in the grave desecration was ignored. The appeals we made which led to the resolution were ignored and all facts about animal experimentation again were ignored.
March 16th 2005 is still relevant. We were in preparation to put up a symbolic banner concerning the Exclusion Zone granted by the injunction. That can be proven. To suggest otherwise was clearly a convenient lie.
It is obvious Judge Pert's concluding speech was previously prepared and paid absolutely no heed to ANY of the mitigating circumstances.
Of course this court fiasco was a publicity stunt for baying media mob. Of course their whole legal fiasco has been manufactured. And of course we will appeal the Judge's decision!

Thankyou to all those who attended court and gave us the strength of many. You're all fekin' fantastic!


Jon Ablewhite (TB4885)
HMP Nottingham,
Perry Road,

A Newchurch campaign regular

Download this article in pdf format >>
Email this article to someone >>
Submit an addition or make a quick comment on this article >>

Poor things

17.05.2006 22:01

"we categorically stated we had no involvement in the grave desecration" -- but after being arrested they told the police where the body was, which does sound just a bit like they had an involvement in taking it. And they *did* blackmail the family for the return of the body.


yeah right

18.05.2006 00:23

"but after being arrested they told the police where the body was"

So why haven't they been able to find it then?

the middle finger

the middle finger

18.05.2006 06:47

They did find the body.

Spook Plant

where's the stuff about the body

18.05.2006 09:55

where does it say that they told the police where the body was? its not in this article as far as i can see, could you provide a link to show exactly where it is you got this information from?

liberated squirrel

explanations needed

18.05.2006 09:56

having been convinced that the grave-robbing was done by state agent provocateurs and angry at the arrogant reporting by the media that the defendants were guilty of it despite any evidence to back that up, I felt utterly let down when it emerged that smith had tipped off police as to the whereabouts of the remains.

Can someone please explain what was going on there? Or is it simply not true that Smith tipped themm off and a case of discrediting police lies.

By the way, I find it extraordinary that they did not choose to have their day and say in court. They were terribly advised.


Think of the positives...

18.05.2006 10:44 that you're caged you can empathise so much more with the guinea pigs...

Progressive Contrarian
- Homepage:

Because the Police say "They told us,where the body was".

18.05.2006 11:36

I watch and read the tv and tabloid newspapers,and they all said the four charged,pleaded guilty and were charged for the "grave roberry",which now appears to be a propagandizing lie as the "plead" and conviction of "conspiracy to blackmail" does'nt match the media spun "grave roberry" charge.

The police said they told them where the body was,well from this above letter they did'nt even admit involvement or guilt to this,and if they did then, why did'nt the police charge them with straight "theft" as telling them where the body was is an admittance of guilt, which is a more serious crime then "conspiracy to blackmail".

The high levels of the Police along with MI5(there to protect the economy) knew where the corpse was all along,and set this thing up with the complicity or uncomplicity of The Halls.

Police and corprate media have lied and lied and lied.


Hold on, wait a minute

18.05.2006 22:30

"flies hovering could be a while, get homous and bread ur goodness" why did Hughesy text that to Jon Ablewhite in the woods in the middle of the night. early that morning they were arrested with mud covered protective clothing headlight and collapsable spade.

Why did Kerry and Jon know certain facts about granny's skull that only the police and the grave diggers knew ?

Grave desecration is not a crime that gives a high sentence. Until 150 years ago it wasn't even a crime.

All the charges were mumbelled together into blackmail...much more genius some might say.

The accusation that Hughesy (John Smith) told the police where granny was made by the prosecution barrister in open court. if that was untrue than it would have been challenged, by the defence, by the judge in court. So ARC News can go on and on and on all they want, you are spinning news to your own, has it really come to that ? You should be ashamed.

Yes, by pleading guilty he got a reduction - from 14 years to 12 years. OK not much but it's called hard luck Jon...

Jon stop moaning and have the courage of your convictions, you did it, you closed the farm, you are the man Jon, you stopped the suffering in newchurch, you are so great Jonny... now shut up and show some dignity....Barry Horne awaits...

And your love is all around, set me me free, would it be easy and to fly, in the end to set me free, la la la, le le le ......................

Nut Cutlets

never mind

19.05.2006 08:17

Never mind, just hope you don't get ill, you might be prescribed medecines that have been tested on animals. But of course, when faced with that predicament of wether to survive or to refuse them on moral grounds, we all know you'll be shooting yourself up with painkillers in seconds, you hypocritical bastard.


Yea i'm gonna take vioxx

19.05.2006 09:27

Yea i'm gonna take vioxx,and maybe thalidomide and maybe some chemo and radiation to lose my hair and vomit for England,and maybe i'll take DES and some of the innummerable drugs and vaccines-both past and present and globally-that have deformed,maimed,paralyzed and killed innocent people.

Your the hypocrite my friend,your the fake humanitarian,who will support the medical genocide on human beings because your anthprocentric furfillment impells you too,and because your too much of a obedient social conformist to question your white robed gods.

None of the Newchurch four have pleaded guility to the grave roberry,the high levels of the police knew where this corpse was from the beginning,so thus will know from the Halls themselves or MI5-or both-what the corpse looks like and where it is.


Get a grip

19.05.2006 18:38

On the logic of your comment someone who objects to nuclear power should have their leccy cut off for 5 hours a day and if they think only renewable power should be used they should have almost no electricity.

In general, anyone who objects to anything would have to lose out to some extent.

It would put an end to most protest; if that is what you want just say so.


So it was the state/Halls/Big Pharma who desecrated the grave to smear Animal Rights.

How did Animal Rights people react?
Robin 'Mr ALF' Webb said "It is within out rules of engagement though I don't know if we actually did it."
Many other spokes-people made similar comments condoning the action while personally disassociating themselves from it.
The four pleaded guilty to (conspiring to) writing a letter to the Halls saying, in effect, "We've got the body and will return it if...". Animal Rights was being smeared and they embraced it as an opportunity.

If A hit B and then told B that it was C who did it, what would C say? If C was like too many Animal Rights people C would say "If you don't shut up about it I'll hit you again" and then whinge that he is being unfairly accused. And actually expect to be taken seriously.

The people who most skilled, and most prolific, at smearing Animal Rights are the activists of too many of the campaigns who are out of touch with reality. Wholly self-absorbed, they talk only to each other un-troubled by social influence. They are flattered when depicted as terrorists. Flattery gets you everywhere. Terrorists groups are choosy about there members and these pillocks would not get past the first interview.

The sad thing is that it is animals that lose out as Animal Rights is smeared.

What should Animal Rights do? If they were serious about liberating animals?
a) If they still don't mind being compared to terrorists the could say "The war is over. From now on we will use exclusively political means". To avoid the comparison use different wording with the same meaning.
b) Get an education in the political process.
c) Expect hard work.


They haven't cut our throats yet!

21.05.2006 17:59

well theres a first time for everything - especially in prison

uncle dave

more scum in jail

03.06.2006 12:07

boo fucking hoo

mail e-mail:


04.06.2006 13:59

How old are you? What are you doing on ukimc?

SHAC is "gay"???



Nice try

07.06.2006 06:39

I'm not inclined to impart much in the way of personal information as I've dealt with animal rights activists face-to-face and don't buy the lie that they are a peaceful and benevolent bunch. All but one of the SHAC/SPEAK activists who I have spoken to have been stupid, misanthropic, aggressive assholes.

The one guy who actually wanted to engage me in debate was a very smart chap. He had been sent to the commuter belt chav ghetto of bracknell, however, so I doubt whether he was fully appreciated.

mail e-mail:

The true perpertartors of violence

07.06.2006 15:39

I haven't researched this particular case in any depth so can't comment. if they were stiched up, it wouldn't suprise me. If theu are guilty, it's hardlty the crime of the century.

While media pundits, self-appointed experts, halfwits and industry shills peddle the same myths about violent "eco-extremists" and grassroots activists , the role of corporate extremism and violence goes largely unreported.

Certainly, animal rights activists are more likely to be assaulted by the public and industry agents than vise versa, a simple fact that no mainstream media outlet seems interested in reporting.

(Statistically, circus workers commit more acts of violence on people than animal rights activists, despite this, we do not see the media alerting people, nor is there a multi-million pound special police unit to monitor circus workers).

Thanks to the internet, The dumping of uncomfortable facts and history down the Orwellian memory hole can be fought,although it is unlikely that accounts such as the following will ever be acknowledged by the mainstream:

"Antitoxics activist Paula Siemers remembers the night two men attacked and knifed her on a Cincinnati street near her home, following earlier incidents of harassment in which she'd been stoned and her house set on fire...

"After they cut my throat they poured water in it from the river and said, 'Now you'll have something to sue about,'" says Stephanie McGuire, an activist who was raped and tortured by three men in camouflage after she protested water pollution on the Fenholloway River...

"We think it was murder," says a friend of Leroy Jackson, a Native American environmentalist whose body was found by the side a New Mexico highway several days before he was scheduled to fly to Washington to testify against clear-cut logging on the Navajo reservation...

"I was driving home from a concert and saw a glow in the mist. By the time I got to my house a mile and a half in from the highway it was burned to the ground," recalls Greenpeace USA's toxics coordinator Pat Costner of the arson fire that destroyed her home...

"We were told if we killed any of them there was $40,000 that was there to defend us in court or to help us get away," says Ed Knight, an ex-logger and Hell's Angel describing how he was hired to lie in ambush with an Uzi, waiting to shoot Earth Firsters in the California woods...

And on and on the stories go...

In light of stories like these, plus further examination of the role of corporate lobby groots and their mentally defective, far-right linked "experts" it is worth asking questions such as who would really send HIV infected (alledgedly) syringes to Professor Colin "Trust Me" Blakemore...a crazed vegan? Or corporate agent?

Certainly, nobody has explained where the average AR activist would manage to get HIV positive blood from, bearing in mind that most AR activists find it difficult enough getting hold of decent non-leather shoes!

Conspiracy? wot conspiracy?



12.06.2006 17:59

"In light of stories like these, plus further examination of the role of corporate lobby groots and their mentally defective, far-right linked "experts" it is worth asking questions such as who would really send HIV infected (alledgedly) syringes to Professor Colin "Trust Me" Blakemore...a crazed vegan? Or corporate agent?"
Tell me, where's the best place to buy tin foil hats these days?

mail e-mail:

AR activists

04.08.2006 23:25

Interesting rant from Shaquilla. I have also met a great deal of AR activists. Certainly they are not saints, they have the same number of hangups, insecurities and straight arrogance as any other group. But in general I have not found any examples of misanthropy, violence or general intolerance. I have found this to be more common among the public servants I have been dealing with regarding animal welfare. AR activists share a comittment to a world where animals can be free from human expoitation. Many of them also go on anti-war protests and feel just as strongly about the expoitation of weaker members of our own species.

Continuous activism, knowck backs, clashes with the powerful elite and battles with the uncompassionate, the greedy and the plain apathetic can take its toll, and it is not surprising that many activists become disillusioned with humanity as a whole, which could be interpreted as misanthropy. What is surprising is that it does not happen more often. It is a testimony to the courage and inner strength of AR sctivists that they can continue to go on and on and on.

But even if every AR activists was a raving misnathope, this does not in any way constitute an argument against the premise that animals should not be expoited for trivial purposes. Every first year philosophy student would recognise this as an ad hominem attack, and not part of rational debate. The "logic" goes something like

Phil: Animals feel pain and emotions, and it is immoral to cause another being that feels pain and emotions to suffer, for trivial reasons.

Shaquilla: But you, Phil are a misanthropist tosser.

Phil: Wow, rarely have I heard such a convicing rebuttal. You are obviously a philosophical genius. I must be wrong about animals feeling pain and emotions, and I must be wrong about it being immoral to cause pain to a sentient being. Thank you for pointing out to me that it is perfectly ethically acceptable to beat you into a pulp.

phil the vegan
- Homepage:

If only AR Activists offered such convincing comebacks

21.08.2006 18:20

Phil, I would never write off as a "misanthropic tosser" someone who offered an argument as eloquent as the hypothetical offered by you above. on a personal level, I do not believe that animals inherently have 'rights', as rights are a system devised and applied by humans, but that debate is for another day.

I appreciate what you're trying to say, but in painting me as such a moron then you're guilty of an ad-hominem attack yourself, albeit a pretty smart one. nice try

mail e-mail:

This was the start

10.07.2007 12:45

This was the start of the end game for ARM. The truth is they DID do it and as such scored a massive own goal. Every article in the mainstream press regarding AR now includes a line about sick grave robbers.
Smith gave up the location of the Tupperware box in which the bones were hidden but wouldn't admit guilt - so he got no consideration, hypocrite fool.
This single action focused government attention on to the issue and the SHAC arrests are a recent result of that focus. We can expect jail terms in the same region for Greg and Natasha. On the subject of SHAC the website trumpets ‘Business as Usual’ but Biteback tells a different story – a legal campaign against the NSYE ? Very effective.!No doubt the discipline that is currently holding back the home visits and the mindless vandalism will eventually fail. Let’s see how long the next generation get sent down for.