<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<oembed>
  <version>1</version>
  <type>rich</type>
  <provider_name>Libsyn</provider_name>
  <provider_url>https://www.libsyn.com</provider_url>
  <height>90</height>
  <width>600</width>
  <title>Criminal Trials, Restrictions on Protest, and Good News for Some</title>
  <description>Animals have the status of objects in law, and so a dog is the property of his/her owner. Surely then, breaking into the owner's premises and taking the owner's dog without consent must then constitute theft? Not necessarily so. At Cambridge Crown Court recently, a jury found that defendants had not acted dishonestly in removing [some might say rescuing]&amp;amp;nbsp; beagles from MBR, a breeding facility where the dogs would be used in medical research.&amp;amp;nbsp; We consider some of the legal issues arising out of the two trials that have taken place, each with a different outcome. We also discuss the amendment to legislation that will make it a criminal offence to interfere with the use or operation of an animal research facility, and the prospect of a&amp;amp;nbsp; legal challenge to the legality of such a provision.&amp;amp;nbsp; We also acknowledge the contribution of the late Brigitte Bardot, the first celebrity to champion the cause of animal rights at a time else when no other public figure seemed to care.&amp;amp;nbsp; &amp;amp;nbsp; &amp;amp;nbsp; </description>
  <author_name>Animal Rights: the Debate</author_name>
  <author_url>https://sites.libsyn.com/494093</author_url>
  <html>&lt;iframe title="Libsyn Player" style="border: none" src="//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/39772785/height/90/theme/custom/thumbnail/yes/direction/forward/render-playlist/no/custom-color/88AA3C/" height="90" width="600" scrolling="no"  allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen&gt;&lt;/iframe&gt;</html>
  <thumbnail_url>https://assets.libsyn.com/secure/item/39772785</thumbnail_url>
</oembed>
