Hate to Shake you up, but I Dress to Suit Myself
Harlan Ellison was different. He grew up in Ohio and died in California, but that wasn’t what made him distinctive. Ellison was an unstable cocktail – one part impulsive, one part impassioned, one part inventive. As a child, Ellison frequently ran away from home, and he would later be expelled from university after hitting a professor who denigrated his writing ability. He drifted through a series of jobs – department store clerk, short order cook, door-to-door salesman, cab driver, then truck driver, crop picker, fisherman and walk-on actor. He didn’t speak to his only sibling for thirty-four years, married five times (the shortest marriage lasted eight months), and famously clashed with Frank Sinatra at a private club in Beverley Hills. Ellison was in the middle of a game of pool with actors Omar Sharif and Peter Falk, and baseball player Leo Durocher, when Sinatra took exception to Ellison’s attire, corduroy slacks, Shetland sweater, tan suede jacket, and a pair of garden boots. Journalist and author Gay Talese later summarised the exchange:
Sinatra told Ellison, “I don’t like the way you’re dressed.”
Ellison replied, “Hate to shake you up, but I dress to suit myself.”
The situation became ridiculous, and Ellison left the room.
Sinatra told the assistant manager, “I don’t want anybody in here without coats and ties.”
Ellison moved to Los Angeles four years before his altercation with Sinatra, and was writing scripts for popular television shows such as The Outer Limits, The Alfred Hitchcock Hour, The Man from U.N.C.L.E. and Star Trek (Ellison wrote what many believe to be the finest Star Trek episode, The City on the Edge of Forever).
In between script writing, Ellison wrote sci-fi stories including I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream. The 1967 short story (6,500 words long and written in a single night) is set during a fictional World War III, and describes the merciless torment and torture of five individuals by a network of computers, referred to only as AM. Although there is a strong technology bent to the story, its overarching thesis is that humanity’s capacity for virtuous behaviour is limited, whereas our capability for depravity is limitless.
A biographical documentary about Ellison, aptly named Dreams with Sharp Teeth, was released in 2008.
The Dinosaur
The B1090 connects the A141 with the village of Abbots Ripton, in Cambridgeshire. The road cuts through a green landscape, and dips at about the halfway point. The views, while pleasant, aren’t postcard worthy – but on May 2nd 2022, that all changed. A security officer at MBR Acres, an industrial puppy-breeding facility located on the B1090, reported seeing something resembling a Tyrannosaurus Rex at the site’s entrance gate. Many would have doubted the man’s claim but luckily it was caught on CCTV.
The dinosaur was in fact nothing more than someone dressed in a costume. They first appeared at midday and ‘ambled around the verge of the carriageway to the left of the entrance.’ The dinosaur wasn’t the only spectacle – there was a group protesting against MBR and its breeding of beagle puppies, for sale to so-called testing and research laboratories. The dinosaur approached one of the protestors and engaged in a conversation, during which the protestor removed his shoes, handing them to the dinosaur, which then ‘seemed to be doing little more than messing around on the driveway area, and showing off for the CCTV cameras and the protestors.’ Within a short while the dinosaur was gone – but many of the protestors remained at MBR’s entrance volunteering at Camp Beagle, a 24×7 protest camp.
Last week, the dinosaur sighting was submitted as evidence in a case brought by MBR to quash Camp Beagle and silence the camp’s growing community. MBR’s tactics are all too familiar: over reliance on the police to operate beyond their powers, excessive use of private security, threats and intimidation against peaceful protestors and a grotesquely-funded legal pursuit – since 2021, MBR is reported to have spent a staggering £4 million in legal fees trying to close Camp Beagle down.
MBR’s litigation asserted that trespass in and around the site’s entrance and by use of drones overhead, repeated obstruction of the junction where the facility’s driveway and B1090 meet, and accusations of staff harassment, were sufficient grounds to issue a crippling injunction that would effectively spare its B1090 site from any form of public protest. The allegations were put before a court so a judgement could be made as to their validity, and whether there was merit for the injunction.
The Litigation
The litigation was brought by MBR Acres Limited, a UK subsidiary of Marshall Bioresources. The defendants were John Curtin, and persons unknown (a lazy catch-all term). Curtin is a lifelong animal rights activist and campaigner, well versed in driving social change. He has lived at Camp Beagle, a row of flimsy tents situated outside MBR, since 2021. His isn’t an easy existence – exposed to the elements and noisy traffic, harassed by MBR staff, absent of home luxuries, and haunted by the continual barking and howling of caged puppies.
The hearing was presided over by Justice Nicklin, who succinctly framed the issue at hand – whether the method of protest which Curtin and others use is lawful. Nicklin added that the case was ultimately about striking a proper balance between the protestors’ rights of freedom of expression and assembly, against MBR’s rights to go about their business.
The Puppy Killers
Unlike many legal findings, the Final Judgement is an interesting read. Yes, there is dry language, lots of legal precedent and much case law, but it also includes telling testimony by those involved in the cruel breed-test-die existence of MBR’s beagles.
During the trial, Curtin questioned several witnesses. Here are some of the more interesting exchanges.
MBR Witness 1:
[Curtin]. Do you accept that there is a significant proportion of the British public, a sizeable number of people − not a tiny minority of people − that have really strong views about animal experiments and utterly condemn them? Would you accept that?
A. Sorry, could you repeat that? I didn’t quite hear.
[Curtin]. Would you accept that there are a large number of people, who hold the opinion that animal experiments are a modern−day horror story and they’re scientifically and morally bankrupt? Are you aware that that point of view is one that’s out there in the general public?
A. I accept that some people don’t like it, but I wouldn’t accept the fact that a large majority of people don’t like it.
MBR Witness 2:
[Curtin]. Well, when I said ‘shame on you’, when I call MBR workers ‘puppy killers’, that’s exactly what I have in my head. I don’t care if you haven’t got blood on your hands because your wages literally contain blood money. That’s my point of view. But would you accept that that point of view could reasonably be held by a large majority of other people?
A. It could be held by a majority of people, yes, I guess.
MBR Witness 3:
[Curtin]. So these, as you see it, are misguided people [protestors] who don’t know the facts, but they’ve come to the idea that there’s puppy-killing going on here [MBR Acres site]. What about that you’re all collectively responsible? Do you understand such a point of view? You don’t have to agree with it, but do you understand that someone could take that point of view?
A. I do, from believing the wrong information that has been put out there, they might believe that, yes.
[Curtin]. I could use stronger examples but let me say if you were a potato factory producing potatoes − but you’re not. You produce beagles − but just some potatoes, the people that work in the office, there’s the security, the people that pack the potatoes, the people that put the potatoes in the van, the van drivers, they’re all part of the potato factory and they’re all part of the procedure. Do you understand that? And then apply that to MBR. I just need you to understand that. Do you understand that way of thinking that some people might have?
A. I understand that anyone that works for a company is part of the company, yes.
During cross-questioning Curtin established MBR workers were aware the site had a bleeding licence and practiced terminal bleeding procedures, during which puppies were bled to death. Curtin also highlighted the surprising similarity of specific wording in several of MBR’s witness statements, which judge Nicklin noted in the Final Judgement.
MBR Cries Wolf
Just as peculiar as the dinosaur sighting, is the anti-terrorism presentation given to MBR staff sometime in late 2021. According to testimony provided by a MBR worker, known as Employee F, anti-terrorism police gave a talk that covered ‘car and letter bombs’ and was designed to ‘raise awareness.’ In reality, all it did was alarm and distress the staff.
While there have been moments of confrontation between MBR staff and protestors, common to many picket lines, none have included violence or the use of terror as a tactic. On the contrary, Judge Nicklin affirmed Curtin and other protestors had a ritual of delaying vehicles entering and exiting the MBR site, so they could communicate their protest message. There is no assertion by MBR of any terror threat, so why they agreed to and organised an anti-terror talk remains a mystery. One is left wondering if it was more for effect.
MBR’s legal team attempted to crudely pen an alarming caricature of Curtin as the architect of a harassment campaign of installing cameras to capture vehicle number plates, which would then be shared on social media. When MBR was challenged on this claim, Judge Nicklin determined they had no evidential basis to make the assertion. On the contrary he concluded: ‘The short – and simple – point is that the Claimants [MBR] have adduced no evidence that the siting of these cameras caused any distress, alarm or upset to any employee.’
With its strategy failing, MBR took to the skies – the skies above their site – and alleged that Curtin had trespassed by using a low flying drone. The legal team were poorly qualified to make any argument and MBR staff proved poor witnesses muddling heights and distances. Curtin acknowledged he had flown the drone, had flown it safely and properly, and had used it to survey what was happening at the facility. Judge Nicklin agreed, then went further: ‘On analysis, and in reality, the Claimants’ [MBR] real complaint is not about trespass of the drone at all. If the drone had not been fitted with a camera, the Claimants would not be pursuing a claim for trespass (or harassment). The Claimants have attempted to use the law of trespass to obtain a remedy for something that is unrelated to that which the law of trespass protects. The real object has been to seek to prevent filming or photographing the Site [MBR Acres facility].’
MBR’s head of site security was up next. A man not easily intimidated, he was tasked along with a fellow employee to clean an exterior notice board that had been spray painted. During the episode he claimed Curtin came very close to him, invading his personal space. Helpfully, the incident had been captured on CCTV. Worryingly for MBR it portrayed a different interaction, that Judge Nicklin concluded: ‘lacks the necessary qualities to amount to harassment.’ Nicklin politely suggested: ‘The witness must have misremembered how closely Mr Curtin came to him during this incident. From the video footage, there is nothing intimidating or harassing in Mr Curtin’s physical closeness. I appreciate that, particularly given the long period over which the witness has been dealing with Mr Curtin (and the other protestors), …the witness regards Mr Curtin as an irritant whose presence is not appreciated.’
And there we had it. After spending £4 million on legal fees, the reason why MBR are pursuing Curtin and Camp Beagle with crooked allegations was divulged – Curtin and the camp are an irritant to the business of breeding puppies, some of whom will be bled out and die on site, the remainder who will be sold to so-called research institutions, and violated to the point of death. There are no happy endings here, but that’s what Curtin and Camp Beagle are trying to change.
Replacing Depravity with Compassion
Last week, MBR stumbled in its crude attempt to weaponise the law, and Camp Beagle was thrown a lifeline. Judge Nicklin determined Curtin’s (and by association the Camp’s) right to freedom of expression and demonstration could be exercised, and would be protected. While an injunction prohibiting Curtin from physical trespass onto the MBR Acres site, and/or any obstruction of vehicles entering or leaving the site was issued, his right to protest was upheld and Camp Beagle remains a fixture on the B1090. It was a Curtin versus Goliath story and thankfully Curtin won.
I visited MBR Acres in 2024, a place that breeds 2,000 puppies a year for the sole purpose of inflicting pain and an early death on them. The site is a metal gate with tatty green paint work, tall poles with CCTV cameras, a crumbling driveway and shoddy metal sheds. It emits unpleasant smells, and non-stop howling and cries. There is a constant stream of white vans transporting dogs in cages to hell holes called research laboratories. If you have any sense of humanity, the place is a living nightmare.
When I read last week’s witness testimonies and got a sense for the dishonesty shrouding MBR, I was reminded of Harlan Ellison, who described himself as someone who ‘spent his life keeping the soup boiling.’ He never backed away from a fight, despite the numerous David versus Goliath confrontations he found himself in, including suing, at different times, media giants AOL, CBS and ABC.
Ellison wasn’t intimidated by his opponents, nor the size of their wallets, because at his core he was an idealist. During the fever of the Vietnam war, he risked professional isolation by declaring an anti-military, anti-war philosophy long before it became popular to do so. His stories frequently featured the lonely, the marginalised and the broken, and he once declared that compassion was more interesting than spaceships. There is no pedestal here – Ellison had his faults too, and courted controversy, but his writing appears to be alerting us to our capability for depravity in the optimistic hope we will change. Curtin and Camp Beagle are bravely doing the same.
On 14th February, Camp Beagle launched a petition to ban testing on dogs in the UK. The petition is the first step towards ending all animal testing. The petition can be found here.
Footnote
As part of The Final Judgement, Curtin was fined £100, reduced to £90, for breaching a 2022 interim injunction. In summarising the breach, Judge Nicklin assessed Curtin’s culpability ‘as low’ and concluded Curtin had not deliberately flouted the injunction.
©2025 Sul Nowroz – Real Media staff writer
