uh-huh.... and me too, I like Channel4 better too.

What worries me is the fact that most ignorant folks who will watch it will believe everything the BBC says.


It is for these very reasons we need to educate the public via door dropping (putting leaflets in peoples letterboxes) and doing stalls , talks etc .
And nto just talk about the unfairness to animals , but telling them about the dangers to humans of the vivisection industry, that sadly is the only way most of teh general public will actaully really start to listen and wake up is when they think they are been put in danger.

http://www.uncaged.co.uk/ do a very good leaflet showing examples of when it goes wrong. It does not contain any pictures , jsut written facts.

This is what it says on the bbc website about the programme :
Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing

Mon 27 Nov, 9:00 pm - 10:20 pm 80mins

Can killing animals to save humans ever be justified? That's the question at the heart of the biggest battle in the history of animal rights - the campaign to stop Oxford University building an £18m new animal lab.

As the demonstrations turn violent, film maker Adam Wishart has a ringside seat at the conflict. Out on the marches and talking to the scientists, Adam asks if vivisection actually works, and, if it does, can it be justified?

Given unique access to the animal labs, this film shows you what actually happens to the rats and monkeys as researchers explore the workings of their brains. And we follow the story of Sean Gardiner, one young boy whose life could be transformed by animal research. [S]

I will be watching and do hope it is unbiased but when I saw it advertised yesterday they showed the boy in a wheelchair and asked the question something like 'is a monkey's life worth more or less than this boy's life and if this boy can be helped by the death of a monkey being tested on shouldn't that be done' - so I don't think it will be impartial, I think people will be thinking that animals are ours to use as we wish without a thought to their lives, I think a question they should be asking is why we undervalue and demean disabled people in this country and only think they are okay if they are full able bodied, I don't know? If anything it gets it in the public domain for discussion as its a subject too easily shoved under the carpet for people to ignore as the cruel reality for many people is too much for them to think about

I am interested in watching that show. I saw some trailers and while I know it will show that poor lad and people will obviously and rightly be sympathetic towards him, I am hoping it will also show some of the abuse of the animals and I don't see how anyone could deny that that isn't horrible also. I haven't completely given up hope that it will be fair.

The last debate the BBC did, they showed a parkinsons sufferer that had a implant put into his brain and said if it wasnt for primate experiments he wouldnt have had this successful treatment. Well ok, but the program didnt tell the public that part of a primates brain had to be removed in the first place to create parkinsons disease as primates do not get parkinsons!!.

Thats the point I'm raising the public only see one side of the debate, the side that the 'right wing' BBc wishes to them to see. So joe public then believe its right to vivisect. By showing human weakness'es it plays on public sympathy, but if it showed a animal suffering in a lab, the public would be more sympathic to anti vivisection.

The last debate the BBC did, they showed a parkinsons sufferer that had a implant put into his brain and said if it wasnt for primate experiments he wouldnt have had this successful treatment. Well ok, but the program didnt tell the public that part of a primates brain had to be removed in the first place to create parkinsons disease as primates do not get parkinsons!!.

Hi Poppyseed, :hi:
DO NOT get parkinsons?? wow, didn't know that.... but anyway, so thats interesting, and of course I know brains are messed with, but in this case is whats done to the monkey by scientists actually a proceedure removing a monkey's brain in order to handle it and all thruout that the monkey remains alive whilst that operation/surgery was in progress, how is that possible?? The brain does loads of things to regulate the body :confused: so if they acheived that, I am dropjaw, but actually maybe you are saying they only (bad enough) took out or partially exposed a portion of the monkey's brain so they could make it a parkinson carrier??

Regardless of my curiousity running wild there, I do of course see your point very clearly (and sympathize with that).

Sorry I should have said some of the primates brain cells are removed not all of it!.

BTW The tv guide quotes:

One off documentary in which film maker Adam Wishart investigates the benefits of animal research. Focusing on the campaign to stop the Oxford university building an estimated £18 million lab, He questions whether vivisection works and the justifications for employing it.

They are going to have that prat Laurie Pycroft of 'Pro-test' group on, so its seems its going to be another biased BBC broadcast.

BTW The tv guide quotes:

One off documentary in which film maker Adam Wishart investigates the benefits of animal research. Focusing on the campaign to stop the Oxford university building an estimated £18 million lab, He questions whether vivisection works and the justifications for employing it.

They are going to have that prat Laurie Pycroft of 'Pro-test' group on, so its seems its going to be another biased BBC broadcast.

Sorry I should have said some of the primates brain cells are removed not all of it!.
lol, okay :stinkeye:

Laurie Pycroft of 'Pro-test' group What is the said "pro-test group" and I don't know the guy, but why is laurie a prat?? Just wanting confirmation of what to expect & stuff, cheers.....

I read about this in the Independent's TV guide today, and it mentioned that it's been aired before..has anyone seen it already?

Laurie Pycroft is the little prat :gun: who said yes we do need a lab, so he has the support of the medics at Oxford and polititions and he has demo's supporting the lab.

The BBC interviewed the producer of the prog, yesterday and he was asked if he had shown the documentory to the groups involved and he said he had shown it to the oxford professors etc and they said it was a fair appraisal but he didnt show it to anyone else. So thats says a lot doesnt it!!!!.

They showed as well a primate in a very tiny holding cage. But whats the betting tonight's prog will not show the primates with the scalp exposed and electrodes attached to it!!?.

No I won't be watching it as I will get so angry and frustrated.

Bumping the Christmas Without Cruelty Fayre: http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/CAMPAIGNS/living/ALL/1341//fayre.htm

Schoska, Spidergrrl, are y'all still thinking about coming? Anyone else? I've heard (from another VBer :D) that it's quite fun.

The CWC fayre is pretty good. I've been the last 2 or 3 times. I'd like to go, but I can't commit at the moment.

I'm out--£ is tight as we are hoping to move house in a few weeks with any luck.

Oooh...moving. :no:
<<moved 5 times in the past 2 years.

Sounds like this is a good thing for you though. :p

First of all this post :) in which to set just set apart the two films and this bit here for you poppyseed... A kinda disclaimer about my questions to say I was not} NOT IN THE KNOW about the issues per se hope you understood, but needed reminding moreover :) but yo I think I got it just about wrapped up now most it, and the Oxford Lab in particular, being that was the core issue tonight at least, as I watched the latest film intently trying to pick up something useful.

lol, okay :stinkeye:

What is the said "pro-test group" and I don't know the guy, but why is laurie a prat?? Just wanting confirmation of what to expect & stuff, cheers.....
^^^^^^^^
sooooo yeah, Sorry btw I had to ask that, (shows a bit of my ignorance) about "pro-test group" ETC, but I realize now that was Laurie's SH!T piece of work (aka "www.pro-test.org.uk")....BUT by the way I mention mainly as have seen him afterall (the Laurie prat) in another documentary/debate show (earlier this year obviously during his OUTING of himself) akin to the one shown tonight and featuring very much the same characters (Mel Broughton etc :up: Gotta love this guy's cool yet aggressive stance!!!! :up:) and issues, but nontheless a different film....

I read about this in the Independent's TV guide today, and it mentioned that it's been aired before..has anyone seen it already?

I dunno to be absolute, actually though I would suspect the latest has not been shown before, not on nationwide tv where tonights individual film is concerned.
__________________________________________________

For those that did not get to see, here's the main nitty gritty I noted!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Anyways, if you wanna know poppyseed, there was a bit of film where there was a monkey pinned down with scientists hitting quite crudely with a hammer of all instruments, so that was definately "WTF material" but that was about the only thing substantial as to the true nature of what REALLY goes on in a lab as protrayed (or not) by the latest program, including a rat with scalp opened in restraint device and shown was the hard to see electrode in the rats head (no doubt a proceedure which many rats don't survive btw I got the gist of, as seemed to be the message in the film at that point). OH & BTW, Laurie PieHole Prat had a jar of a lambs heart which he dissected and then sutured back together which he had pickled as a student and keeps on his shelf (as the 3rd WTF item shown).

And as for, Sean, "the youngster whose condition could be helped as the result of animal research" (as the arguement goes) he was asked the question would he prefer him to be the butt of experiments instead of the monkeys and to be fair he did say yes he would rather him be the subject...
but I don't know how serious he meant that of course, though he seemed genuine, only I don't know what else he had to say about it (not recalling every word).

ANYWAY, that was " Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing" and I don't know
what else to add, other than to say the the commentator should not endorse at the end of the show whether the Oxford lab should've have gone ahead or not, (YES!!! HE THINKS, "GO FOR IT" ~ HE ULTIMATELY THINKS)) whereas he should've stayed **MORE Neutral-ish** all the way thru. I heard him say how he feels (as the film maker or remotely as a human being) he felt in his heart some stuff is hard to justify, but in the end he says how in his head he could justify, so make of that what you will. In my view he simply should not have said what his conclusion was about Oxford lab being built. WE DON'T NEED TO KNOW THAT MUCH ABOUT HIS OPINION TO THAT MONSTRABLE END_ Sheesh... but conclude he did.

Now those were my observations of it, and I think right on accurate am I in the reiteration of notes in my head replayed here in this post (for anyone interested of course).

ps, one more thing is that I think it was that guy who wrote Animal Liberation told in the film to have been written or FIRST established as term in his book ("Animal Liberation") whence 32 years ago, and 32 years since, he is sat in a room with the Scientist (the one making the big stand) and when was the AL book author guy practically gave the Scientist "a ringing endorsement" in the reportoire of the commentator/film maker, and I gotta say it sounded like what I heard too, in fact, AL author guy, said something like if no other way to carry out the research, do the deed of testing he said to the scientist (despite all the knowledge of what could have lead him to the contrary and despite the book he wrote that gave such revolutionary insight of calling for recognition and open debate of rites for animals etc.,, and also said to the scientist in the same sentence that
the labmam/scientist (Tupir, whatever his name is) was told he by OUR MAN of ANIMAL LIB, he should not reproach himself for doing the work on animals he does,, which even ALL IN ALL was a bit of a shocker coming from someone essentially on the side of animals. (Dammit someone tell their names, so I can stop using character descriptions) ..... Anyway, he could have least made it less of a ringing endorsement I think to the side of fence we all at VB would rather not lean over and touch upon. (let alone side with)... but hmm, yeah, you get me.....

Peter singer is the animal liberation author and I was surprised to see him sort of agree with the doctor but he only agreed that it sounded okay, like you said if there was no other alternatives, that 100 monkeys were tested on and that led to something like 400,000 people with alzheimers being helped. The problem is that those who do test on animals do see it as the only way testing could be done.

I felt abit sorry for the guy from SPEAK after the lab in Oxford got built after all.

Anyone else from Essex, chav capital of the world (innit)?

Anyone else from Essex, chav capital of the world (innit)?

LOL!!

My husband just said he's been there once and has no desire to ever go again!

I felt abit sorry for the guy from SPEAK after the lab in Oxford got built after all.

It's not finished yet. ;)

The AR people came off generally as single-minded zealots and criminals whereas the experimenters were portrayed as more dynamic and thinking, even caring for the animals they experimented on. (I think part of the reason was the focus on the SPEAK guy, who is perhaps a little bit of a zealot.) Subtle music pieces were used to emphasise the achievements of the experimenters and the evil crimes committed in the name of AR.

We got to see the kid in the wheelchair, but the footage of the animal experiments was rather limited.

In my opinion the programme was nauseatingly biased.

It made me ask myself this, though:
Assuming that animal experiments can be carried out with a minimum of suffering, but of course still resulting in the death of the subjects, as it was portrayed in the programme, perhaps comparable in suffering to what exists in factory farming:
Can anyone else than perhaps ethical vegans criticise the practise without being hypocrits? And would it be wiser for the AR movement at this stage to focus more on factory farming than animal experiments?

Of course ot was biased, thats why I didnt want to see it.

Interesting fact about that twat Laurie Pycroft keeping lambs hearts pickled, on sicko!!!.
It makes me wonder if the BBC is in ca-hoots with the great vivisection industry, like the government. The BBC is hand in hand with the BBC anyway.

I *really* still don't think the newsnight program a couple of months ago was all that bad. While the BBC aired this, at least it was an independent filmmaker. I posted elsewhere though, that I was extremely disappointed. They seemed to be trying to make the point that ONLY animal testing could advance medical science. Please. Recurring comments about SPEAK's tactics not working (even though more AR folks showed up to protest that the pro-test people), while Laurie's moves were described as sophisticated. Geez. The filmmaker says he had an open mind..pah.

I didn't watch that animal testing show in the end, even though I intended to.
It sounds like it would have been a disappointment anyway.