Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Are farm animals to blame for the rise of superbugs?
20 views
Skip to first unread message
Pat Gardiner
Jun 4, 2013, 11:07:08 AM6/4/13
to
Pat's Note: The Daily Mail seems to be held in little regard by many
"serious" journalists and scientists, but people read it, and people
have votes.
It is lighter reading than much, but we don't all want to read only
heavy articles in a fast moving world.
Someone emailed to prompt me to read this.
I wondered what prompted the article, aside from the specific case,
until I saw this, in the closing lines.
"But the budget of Britain's industry regulator, the Veterinary
Medicines Directorate, for monitoring resistance is being cut
heavily."
When caught out, as they will be, the excuse of Britain's veterinary
establishment will be, "we did not have enough money…"
You do not pay people failing to do their job - you progressively cut
their budget and get someone else to do the work.
The budget cut has not happened yet, but the neglect of duty and
monitoring, has been going on for at least 13 years. They have had 13
years pay, maybe there will be cause to claw some back following a
Royal Commission of Enquiry into veterinary civil service neglect,
test faking and attempted witness intimidation.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2335426/Are-farm-animals-blame-rise-superbugs.html?ico=health^headlines
Are farm animals to blame for the rise of superbugs?
By JEROME BURNE
PUBLISHED: 00:03, 4 June 2013 | UPDATED: 07:46, 4 June 2013
--
Regards
Pat Gardiner
Release and independently audit the results of testing British pigs
for MRSA, C.Diff and Hepatitis E now!
www.go-self-sufficient.com and http://animal-epidemics.blogspot.com/
"serious" journalists and scientists, but people read it, and people
have votes.
It is lighter reading than much, but we don't all want to read only
heavy articles in a fast moving world.
Someone emailed to prompt me to read this.
I wondered what prompted the article, aside from the specific case,
until I saw this, in the closing lines.
"But the budget of Britain's industry regulator, the Veterinary
Medicines Directorate, for monitoring resistance is being cut
heavily."
When caught out, as they will be, the excuse of Britain's veterinary
establishment will be, "we did not have enough money…"
You do not pay people failing to do their job - you progressively cut
their budget and get someone else to do the work.
The budget cut has not happened yet, but the neglect of duty and
monitoring, has been going on for at least 13 years. They have had 13
years pay, maybe there will be cause to claw some back following a
Royal Commission of Enquiry into veterinary civil service neglect,
test faking and attempted witness intimidation.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2335426/Are-farm-animals-blame-rise-superbugs.html?ico=health^headlines
Are farm animals to blame for the rise of superbugs?
By JEROME BURNE
PUBLISHED: 00:03, 4 June 2013 | UPDATED: 07:46, 4 June 2013
--
Regards
Pat Gardiner
Release and independently audit the results of testing British pigs
for MRSA, C.Diff and Hepatitis E now!
www.go-self-sufficient.com and http://animal-epidemics.blogspot.com/
Message has been deleted
Pat Gardiner
Jun 5, 2013, 3:41:10 AM6/5/13
to
On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 07:50:04 +0100, Malcolm
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <d20sq8d7qq7idv3j0...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
><pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>Commission of Enquiry" into your defamatory claims.
>
>First, there is no such thing as a "Royal Commission of Enquiry" in the
>UK. There can be a Royal Commission or there can be a Public Inquiry,
>but combining the two is just you demonstrating your ignorance, which is
>remarkable considering you have been claiming for so many years that
>this will happen.
>
>Second, do take time out to look up when the last Royal Commission was
>set up in the UK. It might put your claim into perspective, as it dates
>back to before your wild allegations had even started. They are clearly
>not used any more.
>
>Third, you have yet to convince anyone that there is anything to
>investigate in any kind of inquiry, let alone the numerous court cases
>you have been predicting for a dozen years, whether the police, OLAF
>(and it isn't even in their remit), or anyone on this ng, or any
>newspaper or other media. Have you ever wondered why you have failed to
>convince anyone? Do you think it is because you lack any evidence, or
>because you lack credibility? Anyone taking one look at what you have
>written here over the years immediately realises why you have failed.
>Perhaps it is time you realised, too.
Harassment noted (393) for lawyer's use.
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <d20sq8d7qq7idv3j0...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
><pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>
>>They have had 13
>>years pay, maybe there will be cause to claw some back following a
>>Royal Commission of Enquiry into veterinary civil service neglect,
>>test faking and attempted witness intimidation.
>>
>I'm prepared to bet you £1,000 that there won't ever be a "Royal
>>They have had 13
>>years pay, maybe there will be cause to claw some back following a
>>Royal Commission of Enquiry into veterinary civil service neglect,
>>test faking and attempted witness intimidation.
>>
>Commission of Enquiry" into your defamatory claims.
>
>First, there is no such thing as a "Royal Commission of Enquiry" in the
>UK. There can be a Royal Commission or there can be a Public Inquiry,
>but combining the two is just you demonstrating your ignorance, which is
>remarkable considering you have been claiming for so many years that
>this will happen.
>
>Second, do take time out to look up when the last Royal Commission was
>set up in the UK. It might put your claim into perspective, as it dates
>back to before your wild allegations had even started. They are clearly
>not used any more.
>
>Third, you have yet to convince anyone that there is anything to
>investigate in any kind of inquiry, let alone the numerous court cases
>you have been predicting for a dozen years, whether the police, OLAF
>(and it isn't even in their remit), or anyone on this ng, or any
>newspaper or other media. Have you ever wondered why you have failed to
>convince anyone? Do you think it is because you lack any evidence, or
>because you lack credibility? Anyone taking one look at what you have
>written here over the years immediately realises why you have failed.
>Perhaps it is time you realised, too.
Harassment noted (393) for lawyer's use.
Message has been deleted
Pat Gardiner
Jun 5, 2013, 6:03:14 AM6/5/13
to
On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 09:40:41 +0100, Malcolm
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <prqtq897qgkdhbak8...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>Instead of trotting out your nonsense lie, and attempt at bullying and
>threatening me, try facing the facts, Pat, and answering a simple
>question.
>
>Who over the last dozen years, have you persuaded that you have evidence
>for your claims against all Britain's vets, apart from, presumably, your
>wife? Anyone at all?
Harassment noted (394) for lawyer's use.
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <prqtq897qgkdhbak8...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>threatening me, try facing the facts, Pat, and answering a simple
>question.
>
>Who over the last dozen years, have you persuaded that you have evidence
>for your claims against all Britain's vets, apart from, presumably, your
>wife? Anyone at all?
Harassment noted (394) for lawyer's use.
Message has been deleted
Pat Gardiner
Jun 5, 2013, 8:30:56 AM6/5/13
to
On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 12:26:12 +0100, Malcolm
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <b63uq8ten5qf5dsjk...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>And Pat runs away from a simple question.
Harassment noted (395) for lawyer's use.
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <b63uq8ten5qf5dsjk...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
Harassment noted (395) for lawyer's use.
Message has been deleted
Pat Gardiner
Jun 5, 2013, 9:51:01 AM6/5/13
to
On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 14:40:46 +0100, Malcolm
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <eqbuq8hqf332os519...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
><pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>>>>>
>and attempting to bully and threaten them.
>
>The one thing he is not prepared to do is to answer a simple question
>asking him how many people has he actually convinced with his campaign
>of a dozen or more years of defaming all Britain's vets. His silence is
>*very* revealing.
Harassment noted (396) for lawyer's use.
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <eqbuq8hqf332os519...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
><pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Harassment noted (393) for lawyer's use.
>>>>Harassment noted (394) for lawyer's use.
>>Harassment noted (395) for lawyer's use.
>>
>And Pat returns to what he does best. Telling lies, harassing people,
>>
>and attempting to bully and threaten them.
>
>The one thing he is not prepared to do is to answer a simple question
>asking him how many people has he actually convinced with his campaign
>of a dozen or more years of defaming all Britain's vets. His silence is
>*very* revealing.
Harassment noted (396) for lawyer's use.
Message has been deleted
Pat Gardiner
Jun 5, 2013, 11:12:16 AM6/5/13
to
On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 14:53:29 +0100, Malcolm
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <chguq812mbj6i57i5...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
Harassment noted (397) for lawyer's use.
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <chguq812mbj6i57i5...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
><pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 14:40:46 +0100, Malcolm
>><Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article <eqbuq8hqf332os519...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>>><pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Harassment noted (393) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>Harassment noted (394) for lawyer's use.
>>>>Harassment noted (395) for lawyer's use.
>>>>
>>>And Pat returns to what he does best. Telling lies, harassing people,
>>>and attempting to bully and threaten them.
>>>
>>>The one thing he is not prepared to do is to answer a simple question
>>>asking him how many people has he actually convinced with his campaign
>>>of a dozen or more years of defaming all Britain's vets. His silence is
>>>*very* revealing.
>>
>>Harassment noted (396) for lawyer's use.
>>
>Your silence continues to be *very* revealing.
>>On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 14:40:46 +0100, Malcolm
>><Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article <eqbuq8hqf332os519...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>>><pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Harassment noted (393) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>Harassment noted (394) for lawyer's use.
>>>>Harassment noted (395) for lawyer's use.
>>>>
>>>And Pat returns to what he does best. Telling lies, harassing people,
>>>and attempting to bully and threaten them.
>>>
>>>The one thing he is not prepared to do is to answer a simple question
>>>asking him how many people has he actually convinced with his campaign
>>>of a dozen or more years of defaming all Britain's vets. His silence is
>>>*very* revealing.
>>
>>Harassment noted (396) for lawyer's use.
>>
Harassment noted (397) for lawyer's use.
Message has been deleted
Old Codger
Jun 5, 2013, 12:46:54 PM6/5/13
to
conclusion that he writes the truth. That means that you seem to agree
that your contributions are rubbish.
--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field
What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]
Pat Gardiner
Jun 5, 2013, 12:57:40 PM6/5/13
to
On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 16:59:40 +0100, Malcolm
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <o9luq8t5k6jimokce...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <o9luq8t5k6jimokce...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
><pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>
>>>>>>>>>>Harassment noted (393) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>>>Harassment noted (394) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>Harassment noted (395) for lawyer's use.
>
>>>>>>>>>>Harassment noted (393) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>>>Harassment noted (394) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>Harassment noted (395) for lawyer's use.
>>>>Harassment noted (396) for lawyer's use.
>>Harassment noted (397) for lawyer's use.
>>
Harassment noted (398) for lawyer's use.
>>
Message has been deleted
Pat Gardiner
Jun 5, 2013, 5:59:48 PM6/5/13
to
On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 21:51:34 +0100, Malcolm
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <efruq8pj7q55b1isr...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <efruq8pj7q55b1isr...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
><pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 16:59:40 +0100, Malcolm
>><Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article <o9luq8t5k6jimokce...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>>><pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Harassment noted (393) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>>>>>Harassment noted (394) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>>>Harassment noted (395) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>Harassment noted (396) for lawyer's use.
>>>>Harassment noted (397) for lawyer's use.
>>Harassment noted (398) for lawyer's use.
>>
Harassment noted (399) for lawyer's use.
>>On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 16:59:40 +0100, Malcolm
>><Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article <o9luq8t5k6jimokce...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
>>><pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Harassment noted (393) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>>>>>Harassment noted (394) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>>>Harassment noted (395) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>Harassment noted (396) for lawyer's use.
>>>>Harassment noted (397) for lawyer's use.
>>Harassment noted (398) for lawyer's use.
>>
Message has been deleted
Pat Gardiner
Jun 6, 2013, 5:45:18 AM6/6/13
to
On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 09:47:10 +0100, Malcolm
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <m5dvq8ho6u6is883r...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <m5dvq8ho6u6is883r...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
><pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Harassment noted (393) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Harassment noted (394) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>>>>>Harassment noted (395) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>>>Harassment noted (396) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>Harassment noted (397) for lawyer's use.
>>>>Harassment noted (398) for lawyer's use.
>>Harassment noted (399) for lawyer's use.
>>
Harassment noted (400) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Harassment noted (393) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Harassment noted (394) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>>>>>Harassment noted (395) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>>>Harassment noted (396) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>Harassment noted (397) for lawyer's use.
>>>>Harassment noted (398) for lawyer's use.
>>Harassment noted (399) for lawyer's use.
>>
Message has been deleted
Pat Gardiner
Jun 6, 2013, 7:37:37 AM6/6/13
to
On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 12:03:09 +0100, Malcolm
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <lgm0r8hufm4c0he3p...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <lgm0r8hufm4c0he3p...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
><pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Harassment noted (393) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Harassment noted (394) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Harassment noted (395) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>>>>>Harassment noted (396) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>>>Harassment noted (397) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>Harassment noted (398) for lawyer's use.
>>>>Harassment noted (399) for lawyer's use.
>>Harassment noted (400) for lawyer's use.
>>
Harassment noted (401) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Harassment noted (393) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Harassment noted (394) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Harassment noted (395) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>>>>>Harassment noted (396) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>>>Harassment noted (397) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>Harassment noted (398) for lawyer's use.
>>>>Harassment noted (399) for lawyer's use.
>>Harassment noted (400) for lawyer's use.
>>
Message has been deleted
Pat Gardiner
Jun 6, 2013, 8:21:23 AM6/6/13
to
On Thu, 6 Jun 2013 13:02:45 +0100, Malcolm
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <f3t0r89it5qk4t3kv...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In article <f3t0r89it5qk4t3kv...@4ax.com>, Pat Gardiner
><pat.ga...@removeremovelive.co.uk> writes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Harassment noted (393) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Harassment noted (394) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Harassment noted (395) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Harassment noted (396) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>>>>>Harassment noted (397) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>>>Harassment noted (398) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>Harassment noted (399) for lawyer's use.
>>>>Harassment noted (400) for lawyer's use.
>>Harassment noted (401) for lawyer's use.
>>
Harassment noted (402) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Harassment noted (393) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Harassment noted (394) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Harassment noted (395) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Harassment noted (396) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>>>>>Harassment noted (397) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>>>Harassment noted (398) for lawyer's use.
>>>>>>Harassment noted (399) for lawyer's use.
>>>>Harassment noted (400) for lawyer's use.
>>Harassment noted (401) for lawyer's use.
>>
Message has been deleted
buddenbrooks
Jun 8, 2013, 10:38:46 AM6/8/13
to
"Malcolm" <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:o7BbLC5U...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>
>>
>>Harassment noted (394) for lawyer's use.
>>
>>
>>Harassment noted (394) for lawyer's use.
>>
> And Pat runs away from a simple question.
>
And he also selfishly only considers himself, that 394 does not include
>
where you have been harassing me :)
0 new messages