--- title: "An Animal Rights Campaign: Lancashires Response" type: "pdf" year: "2006" canonical: "/projects/663" --- Adrian McAllister BA (Hons) MA Acting Deputy Chief Constable Lancashire Constabulary HQ, PO Box 77, Hutton, Preston, Lancs. PR4 5SB Telephone: 01772 412206; Fax: 01772 614916; E-mail: Adrian.McAllister@lancashire.pnn.police.uk 29 June 2006 Mr Rob T Guerette School of Policy and Management University Park PCA 366B Florida International University 112200SW $8^{\text {th }}$ Street Miami, FL33199 Dear Mr Guerette, # The Herman Goldstein Award 2006 # Table of Contents - [The Herman Goldstein Award 2006](#the-herman-goldstein-award-2006) - [HEADQUARTERS ‘G’ DIVISION - AN ANIMAL RIGHTS CAMPAIGN: LANCASHIRE'S RESPONSE](#headquarters-g-division-an-animal-rights-campaign-lancashires-response) - [LANCASHIRE CONSTABULARY SUBMISSION TO THE 2006 HERMAN GOLDSTEIN AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE IN PROBLEM ORIENTED POLICING](#lancashire-constabulary-submission-to-the-2006-herman-goldstein-award-for-excellence-in-problem-oriented-policing) - [AN ANIMAL RIGHTS CAMPAIGN: LANCASHIRE'S RESPONSE](#an-animal-rights-campaign-lancashires-response) - [An Animal Rights Campaign-](#an-animal-rights-campaign) - [Lancashire's Response.](#lancashires-response) - [Summary](#summary) - [Scanning](#scanning) - [Analysis](#analysis) - [Response](#response) - [Assessment](#assessment) - [An Animal Rights Campaign-](#an-animal-rights-campaign) - [Lancashire's response.](#lancashires-response) - [Scanning:](#scanning) - [Analysis:](#analysis) - [Offender](#offender) - [Victim](#victim) - [Location](#location) - [Response:](#response) - [Offender](#offender) - [Victim](#victim) - [Location](#location) - [Assessment:](#assessment) - [Agency and Officer Information:](#agency-and-officer-information) - [Subject: An Animal Rights Campaign- Lancashire's Response](#subject-an-animal-rights-campaign-lancashires-response) ## HEADQUARTERS ‘G’ DIVISION - AN ANIMAL RIGHTS CAMPAIGN: LANCASHIRE'S RESPONSE I am delighted to personally endorse and forward the attached entry in respect of this year's Herman Goldstein Award. I look forward to hearing from you in due course. Should any of the Lancashire submissions be successful in this award I would be grateful if I am the first point of contact for the Force. If you have any enquiries regarding this application please do not hesitate to contact me on the telephone numbers shown. Alternatively, you may wish to speak with Mrs Kathy Harris, in the HQ Neighbourhood Policing Implementation Team, who is coordinating these competition entries on the Force's behalf. Kathy is available on telephone number 01772412503. Yours sincerely, Adrian Mc Allister Acting Deputy Chief Constable ![img-0.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/06-23/img-0.jpeg) ![img-1.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/06-23/img-1.jpeg) # LANCASHIRE CONSTABULARY SUBMISSION TO THE 2006 HERMAN GOLDSTEIN AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE IN PROBLEM ORIENTED POLICING ## AN ANIMAL RIGHTS CAMPAIGN: LANCASHIRE'S RESPONSE Submitted By PS 1600 MARC NASSER HEADQUARTERS 'G' DIVISION Email: marc.nasser@lancashire.pnn.police.uk Full Postal Address: Force Major Investigation team Lancashire Police Headquarters PO Box 77 Hutton Preston Lancashire PR4 5SB United Kingdom Telephone No: 01772 412606 Endorsing Officer: Acting Deputy Chief Constable Mr Adrian Mc Allister HQ Corporate Services Directorate Lancashire Constabulary Headquarters PO Box 77 Preston PR4 5SB Co-ordinator for Competition Entries: Kathy Harris Neighbourhood Policing Implementation Team Lancashire Police Headquarters Telephone: 01772 412503 # An Animal Rights Campaign- ## Lancashire's Response. ![img-2.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/06-23/img-2.jpeg) Name: Marc Nasser Position/Rank: Detective Sgt Address: Lancashire Constabulary Saunders Lane Hutton Lancashire England, UK. PR4 5SB Phone: 01772614444 ext 412606 Fax: 01772412607 Email: marc.nasser@lancashire.pnn.police.uk # Summary ## Scanning Up to $£ 16$ billion is invested annually in the UK economy by pharmaceutical and biotech industries. Animal Rights militants threaten this investment by targeting companies using animal testing centres such as Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS). During April 2003, two Lancashire based Japanese subsidiary companies became the target of the Animal Rights campaign SHAC (Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty) at their places of work and home addresses because of their business with HLS. The Lancashire Constabulary investigated this linked series of crimes and incidents. The attacks were affecting victims' livelihoods, quality of life, adding security costs, creating economic disruption and financial sabotage. SHAC intended to force the companies to sever business links with Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) [Cambridge] thereby ending animal testing. In 2003 activists forced over 50 national target companies, and over 100 companies in 2004 and 2005 respectively to sever business links with HLS. ## Analysis National intelligence revealed that 50 to 100 committed activists orchestrated attacks using web based communication and intelligence. Their cell structures, legal and forensic knowledge, exploitation of the police complaints system allowed the Animal Rights movement's criminality to thrive in Lancashire. Six victim categories were affected: the UK government, the Police, the community, the company, the individual employee and their families. Two company sites and over 170 company employees and their families home addresses were under threat. # Response - A centrally co-ordinated investigative team called Operation Ghost was created. - Offender disruption through home visits, support of company service of civil injunctions, networking with UK National law enforcement agencies, increasing operational awareness of SHAC and promotion of best practices, review of crimes, surveillance and infiltration, arrests and prosecutions, use of innovative legislation. - Victim support through a joint partnership approach to reduce companies / victims vulnerabilities and fears. - Location hardening through; civil injunction protection, enhanced site, home and business security, IT security and police evidence collection plans. ## Assessment - Reduction in victim vulnerabilities and incidents by 83\% from Jan 03 to March 05. - Identification of AR network in Lancashire (25+ persons). - Disruption tactics and 26 Lancashire led AR arrests / prosecutions. - Customer welfare, reassurance and removal of 24hr personal security. - Service of 18 injunctions upon protesters and their identification. - Reduction in AR Constabulary policing costs from $£ 500,000$ to $£ 10,000$. - Increased international company investment and expansion. - Animal Rights publicity regarding Lancashire's robust policing response. - Creation of best practices within Lancashire. # An Animal Rights Campaign- ## Lancashire's response. ## Scanning: Up to $£ 16$ billion is invested annually in the UK economy by the pharmaceutical and biotechnology research and development industries, which contributes over $£ 3.5$ billion to UK GDP annually employing over 65,000 people and indirectly supporting a further estimated 250,000 jobs. This investment and its contribution upon the UK economy is under threat. The world's biggest drugs manufacturers, such as GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and AstraZeneca, have threatened to withdraw new research and development investment from Britain because of Animal Rights militants targeting them for their use of animal testing centres such as Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS). (Times Online). The main focus for Animal Rights extremists is Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS), a multinational company, with sites in the UK and US which is one of the world's foremost animal testing centres involved in product development for most of the major medical, pharmaceutical, chemical and commercial companies. An extremist group known as SHAC (Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty) is one of these groups, with an estimated 5,000 supporters in the UK and splinter groups in the USA, Holland, Germany, Italy and Portugal. They are dedicated to closing HLS through economic disruption and financial sabotage by targeting the company, its customers and its suppliers. As SHAC identified Japanese companies constituted 20\% of Huntingdon Life Sciences business they vowed to target all these Japanese companies. As they say on their website www.shac.net which they use to organise, coordinate and focus activity. "Put yourselves in the shoes of a Director of HLS or a company that supports them. What would worry you? A thousand people marching around a town centre somewhere hundreds of miles away from where you live, or two hundred angry demonstrators turning up on your doorstep?" (SHAC Website, June 2003). In 2003, SHAC forced over 50 companies to sever business links with HLS. In 2004, and 2005 these figures rose to over 100 companies per annum. During April 2003, two Lancashire based Japanese subsidiary companies of Asahi Glass, called Asahi Glass Fluoropolymers Ltd (AGFP) and F2 Chemicals Ltd became a SHAC target. Their tactics followed their usual format, which is in three phases. Phase 1 began in May 2003, when the Managing Directors of AGFP and F2 Chemicals received communications from SHAC officially requesting they withdraw from HLS. SHAC had also sent letters to company offices in America and Japan. The activity then escalated to Phase 2. Demonstrations were held at the company premises and at both company directors' home addresses. This included the direct targeting of a visiting Japanese managing directors home address. The protesters directed their targets to the SHAC website. When challenged by the Police, the protesters highlighted their Human Rights and right to protest. Their confidence, legal knowledge and propensity to video and record police encounters served to intimidate officers. Further the protesters refused to provide their details. In the absence of an immediate offence, the Police would withdraw leaving the employees feeling vulnerable. These protests expanded to multiple "mobile" protests the same day at multiple employees' home addresses during business hours and after work. Families would ring their partners at work informing them of the demonstration thereby increasing levels of collective anxiety. Over the following days this approach was reinforced with letters, emails, telephone calls, and sinister drive bys. Similarly dressed protesters would target separate victims leading to confusing descriptions and details. Their focus on separate victims was evidence of their legal knowledge regarding harassment. By September 2003, SHAC activity increased to Phase 3. Offences escalated into economic sabotage and business disruption with focused email attacks leading to computer servers overload and resultant business disruption. Many employees received emails and letters threats signed by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) or Animal Rights Militia (ARM). Callers pretending to be police officers, postal workers or friends would contact employees or their relatives to establish or confirm the employees' home address. The employees' personal details would be advertised on various sites on the internet with personal and confidential details. Public invitations for activists to contact employees directly would then be encouraged (ex: www.hlskillers.com ). Criminal offences escalated. Cars, community buildings and roads near the target victims were daubed with red paint stating "puppy killers", "dump HLS", "Scum", "Animal Abuser", "ALF" and the victims' names. Letters alleging the employees were paedophiles were sent to local residents. These attacks would then feature on ALF related websites. Hoax bomb devices were sent to the companies and directors home addresses leading to evacuation and accompanying trauma. Despite active security lighting and visible CCTV, multiple balaclava'd offenders openly approached the victim's car in the hours of darkness and spray-painted or paint stripped vehicles. They escaped unchallenged. Some of these incidents were captured on video depicting the sheer audacity and confidence of the offenders. Their actions were meticulously well planned and coordinated. The protesters meanwhile continued their visible high profile protests undeterred. Protesters even set up protest camps on roundabouts near the Directors home addresses ensuring the Directors saw them every day on their way to and from work. By October 2003, the relentless campaign had succeeded in creating a climate of fear and intimidation. Traditional Police tactics had proved unsuccessful and a problem-oriented approach was needed. Two officers were dedicated to the task. # Analysis: ## Offender SHAC supporters recognise that mere protest is ineffective and can be ignored. They accept the need for a dedicated few to take more effective extreme direct action. Animal Rights extremists have secure methods of communication and because of their lifestyle they are generally distrusting and difficult to infiltrate. National intelligence reveals that 50 to 100 committed activists orchestrate attacks using web based communication and intelligence. Their methodology allowed the Animal Rights movement's criminality to thrive in Lancashire. SHAC activists protesting in the Lancashire Force area are regionally based but supported by others nationally. Some key activists attending Lancashire are well-known animal rights' protestors. Most have no prior convictions although some protestors have minor convictions for public order offences. Many remained anonymous and were confident in their tactics. One activist revealed she had been arrested on 18 occasions since 1999, for offences of conspiracy to cause criminal damage, public order, harassment, trespass and illegal street collection. Most of the offences resulted in her being released no charge or the case being discontinued by the Crown Prosecution Service. When stopped by police in Lancashire the individual was constantly on the phone liaising with a solicitor and was well informed of police powers. ## Victim There are at least 6 victim categories: the UK government, the Police, the community, the company, the individual employee and their families. The first victim is the UK Government and its perceived inability to deal with Animal Rights extremism within the UK. Its failure to meet corporate and public expectation knocked the Government's reputation and robust stance upon crime. The real threat of corporate relocation and continued investment elsewhere was taken seriously. The Japanese consortium, together with other multi national companies, lobbied the Government to address the issues. The second and third victims are the police and community together. A significant number of incidents and public crimes were reported to the police. These crimes, although minor in nature, drew the attention of the local community and neighbours. Police deployments were made affecting service delivery and the Constabularies reputation and ability to meet public demand. They affected the community's perception of feeling safety. The fourth, fifth and sixth victims were considered to be the companies themselves, their individual employees and their families. With 38 employees in F2 Chemicals Ltd and in excess of 135 employees in Asahi Glass Fluoropolymers Ltd (AGFP), and associated families and children the numbers of potential victims increased to over 300 persons. None of these people were prepared for the threat they faced. At the outset they were isolated and fragmented. SHAC's use of public access records, the stock exchange, company literature, yearly reports, companies' house, company web pages, attendance at corporate fairs enabled them to gather intelligence on the Company, its employees and their families. SHAC's use of home visits, internet information services, web media organisations, retail systems, company infiltrations and use of informants enabled them to obtain personal details about their potential targets. SHAC posted details on the web. # Location F2 Chemicals Ltd is located in a semi rural site on the perimeter of a Nuclear Power plant. It has extensive secure fencing and is located away from main roads. AGFP Ltd is located on a large secure Industrial site with numerous other companies and is approached by a private road. The home addresses of over 170 company employees and their immediate families were spread across Lancashire. Most had no form of security or been target hardened against the threat. # Response: Following consultations across the Constabulary, a small centrally co-ordinated investigation team of two detectives, known as Operation Ghost was established, led by a senior investigator. It was acknowledged that the problem required support and co-ordination at national level. The Lancashire companies understood that existing UK legislation could not deter the activity of Animal Rights activities. This was unlike Japan where a British SHAC activist was detained without charge for 6 months for her part in demonstrations at company sites. No such response was possible. The Japanese companies made a critical initial response. Despite having competing business interests, they agreed they would not capitulate to SHAC's activities. They formed a coalition to protect themselves from their common challenge. The Operation Ghost response focused on Offender, Victim and Location counter-measures. ## Offender It was important to be pro-active against the offenders and to reverse their anonymity and feeling of invulnerability. - Disruption tactics through home visits and conversations. To shock protesters, Uniform officers were encouraged to speak to the protesters by name as if they knew them well. Operation Ghost officers would often speak to the protesters using their first names and discuss their personal circumstances inviting them to provide intelligence or become informants. Although realising none would co-operate these rehearsed interactions infected the protesters with suspicions and paranoia of police countermeasures and surveillances. Further as part of the investigative process into committed crimes the Police visited protesters at their home addresses to invite them to provide information about Animal Rights activities again decreasing their feeling of anonymity. - Injunctions The Japanese group of companies agreed to share legal costs to protect themselves and their employees. In October 2003, they obtained a High court civil injunction. This empowered police officers to arrest offenders for breaching the injunction and a maximum sentence of 5 years imprisonment. A joint Police / consortium / company strategy was agreed to enforce these injunctions. As the protesters travelled nationally and regionally, the service of all of the Japanese consortium injunctions would be more appropriate, rather than service of the Lancashire injunctions alone. This would provide a wider geographic protection for multiple employees. A joint strategy was developed to facilitate the effective service of injunctions upon protesters. Most prosecutions for breaches failed this evidential hurdle because of lack of police involvement and protesters denials of service. A Police approved pro-forma injunction service pack was created and included the photographing and video recording of service. This ensured case law requirements were met. Although the protesters refused their personal details they were each allocated unique reference numbers. The Op Ghost investigating officers supported the service and enforcement of injunctions by having complete knowledge of the terms of the injunctions and by briefing local officers policing incidents and demonstrations They ensured that any breaches of the injunctions would be dealt with in a robust but fair manner. Through directed police action protesters were stopped in their vehicles where they had to provide personal details. Further investigation revealed protesters associations, activities and movements. Although the Police could not legally release protesters details to the companies it did share their unique reference numbers so intelligence could be shared. As the injunctions covered multiple geographic regions and more than one force area, the investigating officers implemented the first national strategy of recording service of these injunctions on the Police National Computer (PNC) against protesters details. This provided officers nationally with details of an identified protester served with an injunction, the applicable restrictions and potential breaches. - Networking: The investigation team established, developed and maintained national links with UK National law enforcement agencies (NCS, NPOIU and NETCU). Officers consulted other police forces where necessary to inform and exchange details regarding protests, activism, tactics and offences. Whilst other forces continued to focus on intelligence gathering, Op Ghost focused on disruption and prosecution. - Education for disruption: Regular updates relating to Operation Ghost were posted on the internal Constabulary networks and Chief Constable's daily log. This use of internal information marketed the importance of the operation, raised operational awareness and promoted best practice. - Review of all crimes committed to date: Members of the investigation team reviewed all local investigations into Animal Rights criminal offences to ensure that all detection opportunities had been explored. The investigation team noted that the quality of local investigations noticeably improved as SHAC activities increased in profile during the operation. A total of 20 criminal offences including public disorder, breaches of injunction, criminal damage and harassment were recorded. - Surveillance and infiltration. Surveillances were conducted and lifestyle intelligence gathered. No criminal activity was conducted during these surveillances. Infiltration was considered and researched. This proved too difficult as the suspected activists led an insular lifestyle, with a restrictive Vegan diet and extreme suspicions of outsiders. - Supportive arrest/prosecution statements to other UK police forces: Op Ghost officers provided identification statements relating to regional and Lancashire activists that led to their convictions for aggravated trespass. - Use of relevant and innovative legislation Op Ghost recognised the need to use relevant and innovative legislation at every opportunity. Existing legislation relating to public order could not be used in these circumstances. To establish protesters identities, officers were encouraged to use Road Traffic Legislation re using cars or being passengers therein. When activists were street collecting, Op Ghost and Divisional officers used legislation relating to street obstruction, unlicensed street collections, unlicensed trading, vagrancy, suspicion of theft, going equipped, deception and more radically money laundering. OP Ghost encouraged Divisional officers to disrupt SHAC supporters' activities by providing informative briefings and explaining existing under-used legislation against such unlicensed collections. With the assistance of officers and links with local councils enforcement officers Illegal street collections in Lancaster, Blackpool and other towns were disrupted during the operation and fell significantly. Two separate sets of SHAC supporters were prosecuted for their efforts to collect SHAC funds. # Victim Police security measures were put in place, panic alarms were installed and covert surveillance devices located near victims' addresses. Two company Directors home addresses were guarded 24 hours a day 7 days a week for in excess of a year by the continuous presence of private security officers. At the earliest opportunity Op Ghost personnel introduced themselves to the company management teams and employees as the dedicated investigative team. They provided the company and employees families with regular communal and individual security briefings and relevant threat updates. Protocols were agreed and put in place to secure and preserve evidence within the company. The investigating officers would regularly visit the company to examine the central registry of incidents and to investigate further linked series offences. The Operation Ghost team further advised the companies to adopt countermeasures to a number of letter writers and emailers by responding to them with copies of the injunction. It warned protesters that further communications would be considered harassment and complaints made to the police. The Police contacted local post offices and sorting offices so as to raise awareness of mail content and get more people involved in the prevention of offences. Op Ghost personnel advised the companies to distribute and pin protesters photographs on the wall to remove the myth of SHAC's "invincibility". This humanised the level of threat involved and established that regional protesters numbered up to 20 in total. It also provided an information tool through which employees were aware of protesters served with injunctions in the event of any breaches at or around their home address. The Police team then implemented trigger response plans within Police communications rooms to ensure a fast and professional response to any call. The victims also had dedicated numbers of investigators to call. Numerous briefings were held with the companies and the employees updating them of police action and results of arrests. # Location A single point of contact for complaints was established within each company for the collation and maintenance of incidents and to provide evidential statements of complaint. Once served the civil injunctions laid down a number of orders that restrained the protesters course of conduct taking place within a defined area that may cause distress and intimidation. The injunctions covered the Japanese companies, their employees, employees' families and their agents both at home and at work. This reassured employees and their families. The extensive number of employees' home addresses rendered individual risk assessments for every employee and relative impossible. Individual risk assessments were conducted on key personnel within the companies subject to their positions, prominence within the public domain, and intelligence received regarding SHAC activity or from the companies. Additionally, the Lancashire companies invested in enhanced site security, reimbursed employee's financial expenditures suffered through extremist criminal acts, and paid for enhanced personal security upgrades at their home addresses. In respect of industrial sabotage the Police advised on security protocols to reduce SHAC activities and prevent the collapse of the company servers from email attacks and overloads. The IT departments were encouraged to create firewalls and buffers for the netting of offending emails triggered by keywords like SHAC, Huntingdon, Animal, ALF etc. Repeat emailers were blocked and placed on a blacklist. As part of the civil injunction SHAC were forced to warn emailers on their website of the consequences of breaching the injunction. This further reduced the flow of emails for all but the most committed. Some sophisticated emailers were still able to send through a barrage of emails by cleverly masking their emails to appear as if the company was sending itself an email. These emails got through but upon discovery of this methodology they were also traced and stopped. Evidential emails and calls were collated and a decision made to pursue the top 20 emailers / telephone callers. Many were discovered to be false accounts or foreign email accounts. UK residents could own an international email account and send UK emails via these accounts to appear foreign. OP Ghost requests for the account holders' details were refused due to a lack of international legal conventions, or proved too difficult to pursue. Through Lancashire Constabulary complaints and company complaints to the international email accounts, these emailers activities were often temporarily suspended. The Asahi companies agreed to withdraw their free phone 0800 business number. On advertised SHAC demonstration days or week of action, all calls would be diverted to a central answer-machine. Personal details and recording were removed from the companies' voicemail extensions. Corporate responses were discouraged. Through IT services, security equipment was installed that could monitor and record all incoming and outgoing calls content and register incoming and outgoing call data. This enabled officers to secure and maintain an evidential trail. All personal names and positions were removed from the Company Internet web pages. Company personnel were warned of the consequences of sharing any personal information however trivial with strangers. They were provided with examples of breaches of security and the availability of information on the web. Employees were advised to note all suspicious incidents at home or at work and individual details of malicious callers in a central company registry and report incidents to the police. # Assessment: - Reduction in victim vulnerabilities and incidents by $83 \%$ from Jan 03 to March 05. Through focused Police interventions and company activity, protesters numbers and animal rights activity at company sites reduced. As incidents reduced, crimes reduced correspondingly. In 2004, 3 new SHAC related criminal offences were recorded. A significant reduction from over 20 SHAC crimes reported in 2003. By March 2005, SHAC incidents in Lancashire had reduced by $83 \%$. ![img-3.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/06-23/img-3.jpeg) A review and assessment of these reduction revealed that this was due to: focussed investigations and arrests, co-ordination of policing response to activists, support of various victims with threat assessment and security advice. - Identification of AR network and arrests. Focused Police activity enabled Lancashire officers to identify over 25 previously unknown Animal Rights activists living in the Lancashire area. Intelligence on their lifestyles and associations was circulated regionally and nationally. Regular exchanges of intelligence and photographs enabled officers to identify and immediately disrupt visiting activists at the sites or travelling within Lancashire. 26 Lancashire led arrests and prosecutions were carried out during the OP Ghost operation between October 2003 and January 2005. Whilst these arrests have not always resulted in convictions, they have undoubtedly disrupted Lancashire's Animal Rights movement's activities. - Customer welfare and reassurance. Officers' regular visits to the companies, their exchange of information, the collective drive to reduce victim vulnerabilities and maximise legislative opportunities created a supportive reassuring atmosphere for the victims. As police / victim relationships developed, the company employees changed their mindset from a negative "victim" perspective to an adversarial "target" status. They no longer felt vulnerable. They were better informed and therefore better prepared. Employees and their families repeatedly supported police operations. They provided individual and collective positive feedback in numerous meetings. The arrest of a regional 4 person ALF cell by Lancashire officers within hours of an attack boosted victims' morale immeasurably leading to national praise. The Constabulary also took the initiative of facilitating Company service of their injunctions on three of the ALF activists at the Police Station. The Lancashire companies served 18 injunctions on 15 identified individuals. By September 2004, as incidents reduced senior company employees considered it unnecessary to retain private 24hr personal security and maintain security expenditures thereby saving future company costs of over $£ 1$ million. Throughout the Operation, the Japanese consortium and leading company Directors lobbied the Government for new legislation to address the Animal Rights activity. Whilst elsewhere criticism was levelled at police responses, the Lancashire Asahi Glass Director's repeatedly hailed the Lancashire Police's response as effective and supportive. They positively highlighted Lancashire police's dedication and focused activity to all levels of Government and in National forums. Officers received numerous letters of appreciation. New Animal Rights legislation was introduced in 2005. Through SHAC directed activity, the employees had received over 1000 letters, over 10,000 emails, 4000 telephone calls, unwanted mail order goods, 2 hoax bombs, over 23 demonstrations, paedophile allegations, 30 home visits including damage, and 2 protest camps. By April 2005, through Police directed activity SHAC actions against Asahi Glass had stopped. The companies were no longer listed as a SHAC target and were removed from the website. SHAC had not succeeded in its endeavours in Lancashire. Employees are no longer influenced or affected by SHAC. - Reduction in AR Constabulary policing costs. In similar Police areas (including Cambridgeshire Constabulary) research of the police's response to SHAC protest and activities revealed that they have spent in excess of an estimated £4 million and not deterred activity merely displaced it. Lancashire Constabulary figures reveal that policing the SHAC campaign cost an estimated £500,000 and had diverted Police resources from core policing. By April 2005, these costs had significantly reduced to an estimated £10,000 per annum. - Increased international investment in target company In 2005, the Asahi Glass Company (AGC) decided to expand its plant at its Lancashire site, by investing over £20 million. This creates new employment opportunities and provides economic growth for Lancashire. This is AGC Chemical Division's largest investment outside of Japan since it purchased AGFP in 1999. Whilst other international chemical and pharmaceutical companies under threat from the Animal Rights movement are considering investment outside of the UK, Lancashire Constabulary's robust response and victim support has created a welcoming business environment. This has encouraged Asahi Glass Company to continue and expand its business in Lancashire. - Robust policing response and creation of Constabulary best practices. Lancashire's robust policing response was advertised on numerous Animal Rights websites. Activists complained about arrests and criticised Lancashire Police's responses in seeking post conviction anti-social behaviour orders as excessive. This has encouraged activists to desist activities and avoid Lancashire. Conversations with activists revealed that "softer" police areas existed. Animal Rights good practice guides now exist within Lancashire. The continuing threat of Animal Rights activism is monitored. Lessons have been learnt and Op Ghost experiences shared. Lancashire officers are now more confident to deal with and resolve this kind of problem. # Agency and Officer Information: - The problem solving initiative was initially adopted and implemented by 2 dedicated Operation Ghost officers and circulated to involve the affected Geographic area policing teams and community beat officers. - The Lancashire Constabulary champions problem oriented policing and/or problem solving throughout the course of its daily activities. The officers involved have received problem solving training. - No direct incentives were given to police officers engaged in the problem solving initiative however a sense of purpose and satisfaction prevailed when positive outcomes were achieved. - Whilst numerous Police Forces have experienced the Animal Rights movements activities, at the time of this Operation there was little or no resources or guidelines available to deal with this problem. Animal Rights activities were documented and patterns established but long-term strategic problem solving approaches had not been implemented. Lancashire officers developed and promoted their own strategies. These were shared with other Force areas and circulated by National agencies as best practice. - Officers experienced difficulties in all three areas relating to the offender, victim, location. With offenders: in identifying viable offenders for surveillance, in infiltrating their cell structures, in recovering forensic evidence, in dealing with activists significant legal knowledge and challenges, in their exploitation of the police complaints systems and the British legal system, in maintaining an appropriate Human Rights balance between victims and protesters, and in planning operations to capture offenders whose activities were random. With victims: the sheer number of potential victims increased officers workloads and exhausted police equipment capabilities. Full security measures were put in place against the main key targets identified. Preventative strategies were provided to other employees. Other potential victims associated to the employees proved too difficult to individually monitor. With location: the home addresses of the employees were spread across the Force area. Whilst many key targets were risk assessed and secured others were provided with guidance. - Numerous Geographic areas and departments and associated agencies were involved in the policing of SHAC activities. These included individual officer deployments to incidents, evacuation of community areas for bomb hoaxes, public order trained officers attended demonstrations, planned operations were conducted around the target addresses, surveillances were conducted, evidence was examined by Crime scene investigators and forensic examinations costs increased. The Lancashire Constabulary spent over £500,000 to police SHAC activities. These policing costs were expenditures that went beyond the projected Constabulary budget and expenses. # Subject: An Animal Rights Campaign- Lancashire's Response Name: Marc Nasser Position/Rank: Detective Sgt Address: Lancashire Constabulary Saunders Lane Hutton Lancashire England, UK. PR4 5SB Phone: 01772614444 ext 412606 Fax: 01772412607 Email: marc.nasser@lancashire.pnn.police.uk