protecting the habitats of wildlife and ensuring pets are treated with care; each has a considerable membership. Yet it seems little is known about the more extreme end of the spectrum; the animal liberationists, activists who have become associated with hardliner views and violent action. Their organizations are shrouded in mystery, a hindrance made to seem all the more sinister by the fact that they continue to attract increasing media attention.

At the forefront of the movement is the enigmatic Animal Liberation Front, which baffles its detractors due to its apparent lack of structure, centre or hierarchy. Activists work in 'cells', which can consist of anything from one person up to a considerable number. These remain anonymous and autonomous from each other, and therefore the decisions and actions of each cell are totally independent of any other. Essentially, the ALF is more of an entity than an organization. Holly is involved with Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, a group formed with the aim of closing down the experimentation laboratories of the medical research company Huntingdon Life Sciences. In recent months, SHAC has become far more well-known, and its forms of protest notorious. Activists claiming to be supporters of SHAC have terrorized HLS employees, physically attacking their property or the employees themselves. Holly says that no "true" SHAC members endorse this behavior. "Actually, we hate those people that call themselves members and use it as an excuse to beat people up. If you do that you're stooping to the level of the vivisections." This is typical of the view of protestors like Holly. Quick to condemn the 'beating up' of HLS employees, she wavers on the topic of violence against property. "I'd never hurt another person or animal, but smashing up the labs is another matter," she tells me. "If nobody gets hurt, I think it's justified." Economic damage is considered a valid form of direct action for the liberationists - particularly if animals are freed in the process. The fact that SHAC has posted a list of the laboratory's workers, shareholders and customers on its website does suggest that it is inviting animal-lovers to inflict physical attacks on those associated with HLS. Despite this, it has made extensive efforts to distance itself from such violence, instead choosing to focus on endlessly optimistic peaceful protest alongside the active liberation of animals. In the past year, SHAC members have broken into HLS laboratories and the premises of companies which breed animals for experimentation in order to set them free. Their main success, however, has been in raising the media profile of the HLS issue, causing British banks to withdraw their funding in fear of experiencing protests - and, therefore, bad publicity - themselves. Contrary to popular belief, groups like the ALF and SHAC are - largely - opposed to violence. As Holly's comment about "stooping to the level of the vivisections" suggests, it would be hypocritical of any animal rights activist to criticise human cruelty to animals and go on to harm other humans in order to end this cruelty. However, Holly herself echoes a popular sentiment - that protestors are unfairly treated, even demonized, by the media. Even for those sympathetic to the cause, the image that often springs to mind is that of a masked activist wielding a petrol bomb. "The ALF, and SHAC, have become synonymous with violence now… it's partly down to certain so-called members, but it's the press too. Most of them just don't want to hear our side of the story." This opinion has been illustrated several times in past months by the treatment of SHAC by the media. In February this year, Brian Cass, the managing director of HLS, was attacked with baseball bats by three masked figures outside his home. Perhaps unsurprisingly, many blamed SHAC, with newspapers labeling its supporters 'violent' and accusing the organization of 'intimidation and harassment'. In spite of SHAC's preference for either freeing animals or targeting the financial institutions that support HLS, the media has consistently blamed it for any seemingly animal rights-related action - even nail bombs sent to farms and fish and chip shops, acts which are clearly unrelated to any of SHAC's aims. It has responded with statements and press releases condemning all acts of violence against humans or animals, but insisting that protests will continue until HLS is closed. The resilience of SHAC and similar groups in the face of such adversity is a clear indicator of the determination and persistence their supporters possess. Thousands of activists are ordinary men and women who feel strongly about  issues like vivisection, and have simply chosen to go one step further than donating to the local RSPCA. Talking to someone like Holly, I find it unfair, not to mention difficult, to assign any generalizations to animal rights 'extremists'. It's important to remember that in their eyes, animal and human rights are inseparably intertwined; cruelty to animals is akin to human exploitation; achieving complete liberation will take us a step nearer to peace and freedom. In Holly's words, "I can't see why so many think what we do is so wrong. All we're doing is fighting for what we believe in, and at the end of the day, what we believe in is equality.