How a Hardcore Anti-Vegan Became an Unlikely Ally
He used to fight vegans in the street, but now…
When you read my Substack articles, you’re getting a window into my evolving thoughts—some freshly formed, others rooted in years of experience. I don’t claim to have all the answers (even if it seems that way at times), and I invite you to engage with my ideas as just that: thoughts worth considering.
Introducing Charlie Veitch
If you’re from the UK and especially the Manchester area, you may have heard of the controversial YouTuber Charlie Veitch.
Charlie has been creating content (and stirring up controversy) on the streets since 2009, discussing political and social issues, confronting the public, and often finding himself involved in hostilities, including physical altercations. On many occasions, members of the public instigate these hostilities, but in some cases Charlie himself is the instigator, and he has instigated many hostile interactions with vegans. Some of these vegan interactions escalated to physical violence.
Introducing the vegans
In Manchester, three vegan groups have been consistently active over the last several years. They are ‘Earthlings Experience’, ‘Anonymous for the Voiceless’, and ‘We The Free’. They engage with the public, exposing the shocking treatment of animals in various industries by showing undercover footage from farms, slaughterhouses, animal testing labs and more on TVs or laptops displayed in the street.
The vast majority of what they show is legal, and yet still incredibly violent. It shocks most people who see it.
For years, Charlie clashed with these teams of activists. You might call his behaviour ‘trolling,’ but it was more sinister than that. A typical troll might just shout something like “I love bacon” and walk away. But Charlie took it further - he would stop and engage in long, drawn out interactions berating and insulting the activists. One of his recurring themes was accusing the vegans of harming children by exposing them to footage of animal abuse, and by ‘starving them’.
It got so bad, that things escalated to the point where Charlie got into a physical fight with a vegan. Charlie had got into an argument with an activist, and it was clear tensions were rising. The vegan lunged toward Charlie’s cameraman, prompting Charlie to grab him and put him in a headlock, resulting in both of them tumbling to the ground as they fought. Not your average ‘troll’ interaction.
Looking back on these clashes, it’s clear that some of the vegans had tried to engage with Charlie in a productive way, but it kept resulting in hostility. It didn’t seem like he was ever going to stop targeting the vegans in Manchester. But to everyone’s surprise, things were about to change. And change drastically.
Our first battle
Back in 2022, I was in Manchester doing activism with my wife, joined by Tash Peterson and her partner Jack Higgs. We were interviewing the public about veganism, having some interesting discussions. Suddenly, this very tall man (I’m 6ft 2in/188cm, and he towered over me) with a booming voice started shouting. He sounded like some kind of Medieval town crier, loudly proclaiming statements like, ‘vegans kill their children’ and ‘vegan parents starve their children.’ I had no idea who he was, but I noticed he was filming, so I thought maybe he was a YouTuber - or just a bit mad. This, was Charlie Veitch.
Here’s something I haven’t publicly revealed until now, so congratulations—you’re getting an exclusive scoop!
Right as we were about to start our conversation, Charlie’s camera ran out of storage space. He asked me for a minute while he deleted some old videos. During this time, his energy shifted. He wasn’t hostile or angry. In fact, he was down-to-earth and nice to talk to. He joked about how he’d turn the heat up again when the camera was rolling, and I told him to bring it on.
At that moment, I realised something I think other vegans engaging with Charlie might have missed: Charlie just wants content. Sure, he had negative views on vegans and disagreed with the activism, but above all, he was focused on making an entertaining video for his channel. He’s perfectly capable of having a reasonable discussion, but on this occasion he was choosing not to - because that doesn’t make for exciting content.
I don’t judge Charlie for that, at the end of the day he’s in the entertainment business. But from our side, we’re not out there just to get content - we’re trying to change the world for animals. I think that’s why a lot of vegans didn’t see the situation with Charlie clearly, and I totally get it. If this had happened when I first started activism, I wouldn’t have seen it either. I would’ve been emotional, maybe I would have been the one getting into a fistfight with him. But after almost seven years of engaging with the public, I’ve learned a valuable lesson: staying calm and perceptive is key when having these discussions.
Once I realised that this was more about content for Charlie, I found it easier to distance myself emotionally from the conversation and focus on what would resonate with his audience. I didn’t know exactly where this video would end up, but I knew non-vegans would see it. My job was to make sure my words appealed to them. Based on how Charlie was acting, it was clear his viewers enjoyed his over-the-top, humorous, but confrontational style.
I didn’t want to go as far as Charlie, but knowing how his audience liked his style gave me a pretty good idea of how I wanted to come across. Plus, anyone who knows me personally knows I can be loud and obnoxious when I want to be, and that I’ve got a dark sense of humour. Maybe that’s a topic for a future article - leave a comment if you want to hear more about that.
Here are some of the notable exchanges from our street debate:
Charlie: “Vegan, bring your grey skull and your sunken cheeks and your weak anaemic complexion and let's have a chat”
Me: “You bring that little pot belly to the chat as well then”
Charlie: “Don't invite him to your barbecue, he'll say no to all the meat, and then you'll even say, “I'm not going to let my halloumi burger get cooked on the same grill.”
Me: “Halloumi? It's cheese.”
Charlie: “Oh sorry—tofu, tofu.”
Charlie: “Veganism is dangerous—it's rubbish for the economy, those cows and sheep are ugly and deserve to be shot, and also vegans have been ruining barbecue since 1853.”
Me: “I'm losing track of all your points, to be honest with you. Must be the B12.”
Me: “You're starving a child, whether they're doing it with fruits or whether they're doing it with steaks”
Charlie: “So you're a good vegan. You differentiate not along eating meat or not eating meat but along morality—whether you're a good person or not a good person”
Charlie: “No one wants animals to suffer, that's fine, so we agree on that”
Me: “We're committing an act of violence on another animal, simply for a burger we don’t need. We could just eat something else instead.”
Charlie: “You can even do a funny little edit to make me look like an idiot.”
Me: “It won’t take much of an edit, mate, you’re doing a pretty good job.”
Those little snippets should give you a sense of the energy of our debate. It was a mix of advocacy, trolling, and, at times, it felt like a bit like a comedy roast battle. Overall, I think it went pretty well. You can watch my video of the interaction here.
Right about then, a group of teenagers came over shouting ‘Charlie!’ and asking for photos. I asked him what was going on, he told me he had a ‘medium-sized’ YouTube channel. I had a look and saw his videos were regularly getting 30,000 to 100,000+ views. My hunch to ‘play along’ a little had paid off. This street debate was exactly what I’d want his large audience to see. But the question was, would he post our entire conversation on his channel?
The aftermath
It turns out Charlie had a lot of respect for me after our conversation. He appreciated the honesty, the clap-backs, and the information. Unfortunately, at the tail end of our chat, Charlie had to rush off, so we didn’t get a proper conclusion to the discussion.
But the big question remained: Would he post the entire debate or edit it to favour himself? To my surprise, he posted our entire discussion with almost no edits. In fact, I don’t think he made a single cut.
Here are just a few of the positive comments about our discussion (and there were many more):
Reading through the comments, it was clear that the segments with Tash and I were well-received by the majority of Charlie’s audience. They’re used to seeing vegans, and others, get triggered by Charlie. They love watching people get angry or upset, sometimes even lashing out physically. It’s rare for them to see anyone calmly engage with Charlie, and even rarer for someone to come off well in a confrontation with him. It seems many of them really enjoyed watching us handle it.
But the story wasn’t over yet. As I mentioned earlier, our first discussion didn’t have a proper conclusion as Charlie had to leave. So I reached out to see if he’d be interested in a more formal debate - a livestream we could both post to our channels. He agreed to come on and have the follow-up debate.
This debate ended up being very different from our original discussion. Charlie came in calm and respectful, taking it seriously. The stream lasted two hours, with our debate covering about an hour and a half of that time. We discussed a lot, so if you’re interested, I recommend checking it out - it’s one of the more interesting debates I’ve had in my activism journey.
By the end, it seemed like Charlie agreed with almost every argument I made in defence of animals, but he wasn’t willing to change. I think many people fall into this category: intellectually convinced, emotionally moved, but extremely cautious of going against years of habit and social conditioning.
I believe most people make decisions based on how they feel rather than what’s logically right or wrong. We’re dealing with thousands of years of generational habits and customs, and as many of you know, it can be incredibly difficult for people to move past their preconceived notions on diet and our relationships with animals. I don’t expect most people to change just from losing a few arguments with a vegan, though I hope and pray they will, for the sake of the animals.
The Vegan Veitch Peace Treaty
So, what was the outcome of this debate? Well, since then, Charlie hasn’t bothered any vegan activists. In fact, he’s done the opposite. He has helped promote our campaigns, not just once but on a few occasions, with the most recent instance happening just last week.
While filming one of his videos, he came across activists from the animal rights organisation We The Free. The Manchester team was holding an event outside of Marks and Spencer, a high-end supermarket chain, showing the public how the RSPCA has been giving its stamp of approval to animal abuse, and how Marks & Spencer is deceiving customers with their "RSPCA Assured" labels.
In his video, Charlie explains why the activists are there and promotes their work to his thousands of followers. He even tells them he’s made peace with the vegans after our conversations, calling it the ‘Vegan Veitch Peace Treaty’. He’s mentioned this peace treaty in other videos too.
The first time he promoted one of our campaigns was earlier this year, when I was in Manchester working with Joey Carbstrong to promote his UK documentary Pignorant. Charlie came along and filmed a segment for his video, interviewing me about the gas chambers used in UK slaughterhouses, and how the meat industry tortures pigs to death for pork products. He included the entire clip in his video.
Charlie hasn’t shown any hostility to vegans in over a year.
I think there’s an important lesson here—the analogy of ‘losing the battle but winning the war’ comes to mind. I use the terms ‘battle’ and ‘war’ here in a figurative sense - it’s really about winning an argument vs the bigger picture of social change. In the past, I was laser-focused on winning every vegan ‘battle’ I got into. To me, that meant the other person either went vegan, or I labeled them an animal abuser. But I hadn’t stopped to consider whether this approach was helping us win the ‘war.’
In my interactions with Charlie, I had some of that fiery energy, but it was toned down. Instead, I focused on the impact my words could have on his audience. I tried to be relatable and speak in ways that non-vegans could connect with. This resulted in a less heated ‘battle,’ but what could be described as a successful campaign in the ‘war’. With Charlie now showing respect to vegans and activists, and promoting our work to his thousands of non-vegan followers, I believe I made the right decision.
This is just one example of course, but I feel this story taught me a lesson in the importance of strategic communication. It’s hard to always know the right words to use in our activism, but I’m trying to spend more time figuring that out. I’ll make mistakes, and I definitely won’t always get it right. But experiences like the one with Charlie have convinced me to stop using a ‘one-size fits all’ approach to activism, and instead, to start tailoring my approach.
I hope you feel encouraged by this story. Sometimes we need a reminder that even the people who hate us the most can change. I’m sure you’ll agree that when someone goes from hating us to helping us, this brings us one step closer to making a better world for animals.
Final words from Charlie
I reached out to Charlie for a quote to add to this article, here’s what he had to say:
“Here goes. I grew up with a vegan best friend and always thought he was being forced to do it by his family. For decades I've ridiculed, mocked, verbally attacked the vegan ideology wherever I saw it. I made popular youtube videos jousting with them in public. But this all changed when I met my match in David Ramms. He challenged me when I was attacking his Market Street vegan stand and we agreed to a debate, live online. After two hours I came to the realisation that vegans are pretty simple. Simple as in good! I understand and do agree with the animal welfare angle and can't really fault the veegs for wanting life for our hairy cousins. (Not Turks, but hairier animals)”.
- Charlie Veitch, 2024
Q&A
In the title of your article you refer to Charlie as an ally, are you saying non-vegans can be allies to animals while they pay people to hurt them?
This is a point I want to clarify, as it’s not exactly what I meant by ‘ally.’ Charlie has shared positive messages about our work with his thousands of passionate followers. By doing so, he’s helped put our activism on the map for people who may never have seen it otherwise and has helped normalise the idea of standing up for animals. So, I’d say Charlie is becoming an ally to vegans.
While I do believe non-vegans can support us in powerful ways, I feel true allyship to animals would mean not paying for their exploitation. I hope that makes sense and clears up any confusion.
"You mention that Charlie intellectually agreed with your points but didn’t change. How do you think we can bridge that gap for others who may be intellectually convinced but still unwilling to change their behaviour?"
If I had the answer to that I’d be screaming it from the rooftops! Unfortunately it doesn’t seem there’s a silver bullet, one-size fits all approach to convincing people to change for animals. I believe many activists are great at helping people make an emotional connection with animals, but behaviour change is complex. One thing that almost certainly helps is lowering the barrier of entry, making it as easy as possible for people to change.
For example, activism that targets government decision makers and their heavy subsidisation of animal agriculture can help. Governments and individuals allow the economically unviable meat, dairy and egg industries to get artificially cheap animal products onto supermarket shelves, making them extremely convenient and affordable.
Through powerful campaigning, activists can encourage them to subsidise plant based alternatives instead. If animal products were at their actual unsubsidised price, I imagine many people would be more inclined to change their behaviour after these vegan discussions.
"If people like Charlie can intellectually agree but not act, do you believe there’s a limit to the effectiveness of logic-based arguments in activism? How important is it to tap into emotions, and what strategies do you think work best?"
This is a great question, but a very complex one to answer. Maybe another future article! In brief, I have huge respect for those who deeply understand formal logic and the intricacies of philosophical debate, but I do think there are limits to any activism that sits solely in that realm. It’s great that facts and logic are on our side as animal activists, but to get the full potential out of our facts and logic I believe including the emotion implications of said facts and logic is essential to influence most people.
I have found inquiring into someone’s existing relationships with animals has worked well in my activism. Asking if someone has a pet at home, or an animal they love or have loved, and exploring this relationship. Asking about their name, personality, what they loved about them, identifying that bond and allowing them to feel the emotions they have for that animal.
I highlight that their animal friend is/was an individual, and I connect this individual with the animals in animal agriculture. I explain that the individual within the animal they love is no different to the individual within the cow, the pig or the chicken who is being abused and killed in a farm or slaughterhouse. Making this connection has enabled some deep, emotional conversations in my street outreach.
"You’ve softened your approach over time - do you ever worry that this might dilute the urgency of the vegan message? How do you maintain the balance between being approachable and making sure the gravity of the issue is understood?"
I understand the concerns around potentially diluting the message, it’s definitely something I worry about. I think there is a balance to be had, but I believe I leaned a little too far in the other direction previously. Through our passion for helping animals, I believe many of us become disconnected from the general public. This is completely understandable and expected of course.
I had the realisation that I had become disconnected myself, which is what led to seeking out the right amount of approachability, accessibility, and urgency in my messaging. I can’t say I have it down perfectly, I don’t think anyone does! But I’m doing my best to figure it out.
"What would you say to activists who believe that more confrontational tactics - like aggressive street debates - are necessary to make people truly wake up to the suffering of animals?"
I see where they’re coming from, I’ve had many of these debates. I don’t think they’re completely ineffective, different approaches work for different people. Some people will have a confrontation like this and it will convince them to change, or someone watching a video of the interaction will be convinced to change.
I’m just no longer convinced that this approach is the best for me, and the impact I want to have on the world. I want the next twenty to thirty years of my life to count for animals, and I believe the approach I’m taking now will help me achieve that more effectively than aggressive, confrontational street debates will.
"How do you balance being authentic with the need to create engaging content? Is there a risk of compromising the message for the sake of entertainment?"
This is a great question and one that I want to try and answer in future articles. But in short, there is absolutely a risk of leaning too much towards entertainment. Our only metrics for success are likes, comments and shares, and you’ve probably noticed the more entertaining, shocking and ‘extreme’ the content is, the more likes/comments/shares it gets.
If we’re boring, we can’t reach as many people, if we’re acting like clowns, we reach more people, but do they take us seriously? And if we’re being purposefully inflammatory, causing hostile situations and strong reactions from the public, again, we’ll reach far more people, but what impact is that having? I believe every activist who uses social media for their work would benefit from taking some time to consider these points.
Have you had similar experiences in discussions or debates with the public? I’d love to hear how you approach these moments and what you’ve learned along the way.
When you read my Substack articles, you’re getting a window into my evolving thoughts—some freshly formed, others rooted in years of experience. I don’t claim to have all the answers (even if it seems that way at times), and I invite you to engage with my ideas as just that: thoughts worth considering.