The Times "Six weeks to halt foot-and-mouth"
Peter Duncanson
<extracts>
SATURDAY SEPTEMBER 01 2001
Six weeks to halt foot-and-mouth
BY VALERIE ELLIOTT, COUNTRYSIDE EDITOR
MINISTERS have set themselves a six-week deadline to eradicate
foot-and-mouth disease from the country or authorise a limited
vaccination programme for cattle in the remaining worst-hit
areas.
Farmers’ leaders and vets accept that an alternative control
strategy to contain the disease will be inevitable if it
persists through the autumn. The Times has learnt that one of
the main alternatives is for a limited programme of cattle
vaccination in the infected and high-risk areas of Cumbria,
Northumberland and possibly North Yorkshire.
....
A senior government source said yesterday: “It is clear that
commercial reasons are likely to influence an alternative policy
of vaccination, though whether it’s vaccinate to live or
vaccinate to kill, will have to be open to new debate.”
....
Farmers’ leaders are expecting that options for a limited
vaccination scheme will be drawn up within weeks. Ministers have
said that recovery for the worst-hit areas might depend on the
use of vaccination to restore business confidence.
....
</extracts>
--
Peter D.
(non-farmer)
Philip
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> writes
We vaccinate and the continent bans ALL UK Beef, Pork and Lamb.
Reason for this opinion look at the BSE situation.
Next a "Lacy type" expert Questions the safety of meat from vaccinated
stock.
We think things are bad at present:((((
--
Phil . Empty bellies not retoric fuel the flames of revolution.
Peter Duncanson
<ph...@greexnheyes.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Cynical Prediction.
>We vaccinate and the continent bans ALL UK Beef, Pork and Lamb.
>Reason for this opinion look at the BSE situation.
Subsequent scenario:
1. Many livestock farmers go bankrupt because they cannot sell
their animals either into the home market or for export, and
their bank managers announce that 'enough is enough'.
2. Her Majesty's Government, thinly disguised as the Official
Receiver, becomes the proud owner of farms and the resident
livestock.
3. Decision time: urgent mass cull? employ farmers to run these
government-owned farms?
4. The public 'will not stand for more sickening sights on
their TV screens', so Tony Blair takes on bankrupt farmers as
government employees to manage the farms.
5. Chancellor of Exchequer taken away in straitjacket when told
that no EU funding is available for this scheme (which, come to
think of it, looks like hobby-farming on a v. large scale).
>Next a "Lacy type" expert Questions the safety of meat from vaccinated
>stock.
Totally misguided of course. Humans would acquire FMD immunity
by consuming such meat - wouldn't they? ;-))
>We think things are bad at present:((((
They *will* get worse by some cause or other, maybe now, maybe
later.
--
Peter D.
(non-farmer)
Jim Webster
Peter Duncanson <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message
news:iug2pt4nsf8e5e7qf...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 1 Sep 2001 16:24:40 +0100, Philip
> <ph...@greexnheyes.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Cynical Prediction.
> >We vaccinate and the continent bans ALL UK Beef, Pork and Lamb.
> >Reason for this opinion look at the BSE situation.
>
> Subsequent scenario:
> 1. Many livestock farmers go bankrupt because they cannot sell
> their animals either into the home market or for export, and
> their bank managers announce that 'enough is enough'.
> 2. Her Majesty's Government, thinly disguised as the Official
> Receiver, becomes the proud owner of farms and the resident
> livestock.
> 3. Decision time: urgent mass cull? employ farmers to run these
> government-owned farms?
couldn't afford it. Have to implement all H&SE measures, pay over time,
holiday cover, days off, maternity paternit
> 4. The public 'will not stand for more sickening sights on
> their TV screens', so Tony Blair takes on bankrupt farmers as
> government employees to manage the farms.
remember average age 58, most would probably take early retirement in form
of doing a few odd jobs etc
> 5. Chancellor of Exchequer taken away in straitjacket when told
> that no EU funding is available for this scheme (which, come to
> think of it, looks like hobby-farming on a v. large scale).
>
> >Next a "Lacy type" expert Questions the safety of meat from vaccinated
> >stock.
> Totally misguided of course. Humans would acquire FMD immunity
> by consuming such meat - wouldn't they? ;-))
>
> >We think things are bad at present:((((
> They *will* get worse by some cause or other, maybe now, maybe
> later.
>
probably true, certainly my assumption. However I suspect food shortage of
some kind within next five years anyway, but whether profound enough to
cause rethink i don't know
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
> --
> Peter D.
> (non-farmer)
Old Codger
news:JPbDLKA4...@greenheyes.demon.co.uk...
> Cynical Prediction.
> We vaccinate and the continent bans ALL UK Beef, Pork and Lamb.
> Reason for this opinion look at the BSE situation.
> Next a "Lacy type" expert Questions the safety of meat from vaccinated
> stock.
Followed by a worse cynical prediction:
The Government states very clearly that there is absolutely no risk to
humans from eating vaccinated meat.
The population immediately decides that eating vaccinated meat *must* be a
significant risk to humans.
--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field
David G. Bell
<9mrqd4$1ta$1...@uranium.btinternet.com> oldc...@anywhere.net
"Old Codger" wrote:
I see there's letters in the farming press, pushing for vaccination.
We ran through the arguments on uba a while back: the vaccine for FMD is
very different from the vaccines most people are familiar with, most
notably it only protects for less than a year. And the pro-vaccine
posters the last time didn't consider this angle at all, as I recall.
Neither did the politicians...
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
If I were to go back to my schooldays, knowing what I know now, I would
pack cheese sandwiches for lunch.
Oz
>
>Followed by a worse cynical prediction:
>
>The Government states very clearly that there is absolutely no risk to
>humans from eating vaccinated meat.
>
>The population immediately decides that eating vaccinated meat *must* be a
>significant risk to humans.
Probably the most accurate prediction yet, I would say.
--
Oz
Peter Duncanson
<j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote:
>> 3. Decision time: urgent mass cull? employ farmers to run these
>> government-owned farms?
>
>couldn't afford it. Have to implement all H&SE measures, pay over time,
>holiday cover, days off, maternity paternit
>
>> 4. The public 'will not stand for more sickening sights on
>> their TV screens', so Tony Blair takes on bankrupt farmers as
>> government employees to manage the farms.
>
>remember average age 58, most would probably take early retirement in form
>of doing a few odd jobs etc
>
Related point:
Where is all the (wo)manpower to come from to manage the
countryside as a public-park/nature-reserve instead of using it
for growing food? I assume that the new use is less mechanised
and requires more manual labour than farming does.
--
Peter D.
(non-farmer)
Jim Webster
they will chose the treasurys preferred option
do nothing
spend nothing
Philip
<O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes
email address
andrew byron
> On Saturday, in article
>
> I see there's letters in the farming press, pushing for vaccination.
>
> We ran through the arguments on uba a while back: the vaccine for FMD is
> very different from the vaccines most people are familiar with, most
> notably it only protects for less than a year. And the pro-vaccine
> posters the last time didn't consider this angle at all, as I recall.
>
> Neither did the politicians...
Most vaccines would require repeat administrations, assuming the
disease threat was still present. FMD vaccine is no different than
other vaccines, what is diferent are the circumstances surrounding
it's use, and what we expect of it. Most vaccines are expected to give
prophylactic protection against a disease which we accept is endemic,
FMD vaccines are proposed as a tool for the eradication of a disease
completely.
As to the point made earlier that the rest of europe would refuse to
accept imports from the UK, well this situation already exists, and is
likely to do so for some time as long as FMD is present, as the wet
miserable weather of autumn approaches (well it's wet and miserable
here, which is why i've been stopped from mowing and am twiddling my
thumbs in the middle of the day), the prospect of FMD dragging on
through winter seems more likely, grim though that may be. Is the
prospect of vaccination really worse than this scenario?
As to concerns about the safety of vaccinated meat, and milk, this
could open up a whole can of worms regarding all the routine vaccines
used by farmers , such as BVD and Lepto, lepto after all can infect
humans, unlike FMD. Personally i think the NFU were playing with fire
when they started to talk up the possible resistance by consumers to
vacc meat, and pushed the consumer association to press for labelling
of FMD vaccinated products.
regards
andrew byron
Oz
>Is the
>prospect of vaccination really worse than this scenario?
Where and what do you intend to vaccinate.
Please be exact and specific.
>As to concerns about the safety of vaccinated meat, and milk, this
>could open up a whole can of worms regarding all the routine vaccines
>used by farmers , such as BVD and Lepto, lepto after all can infect
>humans, unlike FMD. Personally i think the NFU were playing with fire
>when they started to talk up the possible resistance by consumers to
>vacc meat,
That was a supermarket statement.
>and pushed the consumer association to press for labelling
>of FMD vaccinated products.
This one is new on me.
--
Oz
Pat Gardiner
"andrew byron" <and...@elmsfarm.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4a6c8595.01090...@posting.google.com...
> db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk ("David G. Bell") wrote in message
news:<20010902.07...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk>...
> Personally i think the NFU were playing with fire
> when they started to talk up the possible resistance by consumers to
> vacc meat, and pushed the consumer association to press for labelling
> of FMD vaccinated products.
I could not agree more. Not for the first time, I wondered just who pays
these guys. There was no problem, there would have been no problem, but the
NFU decided to create one.
If the government does now decide to go ahead with vaccination, Gill has
created a massive problem for an elected government. He might think that is
in the interests of the farmers. I doubt it very much.
Will someone please tell him he is unelected (I'm told even by his own
members), would he kindly clear off.
Australia will do. That's where he went in the middle of the crisis and
things got too hot before.
Pat Gardiner
>
> regards
>
> andrew byron
Jim Webster
Pat Gardiner <Patga...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9n5ejj$qa6$2...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "andrew byron" <and...@elmsfarm.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:4a6c8595.01090...@posting.google.com...
> > db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk ("David G. Bell") wrote in message
> news:<20010902.07...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk>...
> >snip detail<
>
> > Personally i think the NFU were playing with fire
> > when they started to talk up the possible resistance by consumers to
> > vacc meat, and pushed the consumer association to press for labelling
> > of FMD vaccinated products.
>
> I could not agree more. Not for the first time, I wondered just who pays
> these guys. There was no problem, there would have been no problem, but
the
> NFU decided to create one.
>
> If the government does now decide to go ahead with vaccination, Gill has
> created a massive problem for an elected government. He might think that
is
> in the interests of the farmers. I doubt it very much.
put it like this, the elected problems he might have created for the
government would have been as nothing to the problems they would have got if
they had tried to vaccinate.
Can you honestly believe MAFF could have coped?
Not only that but there was only one vaccination scheme the EU would have
let us do and that did not allow us to do sheep.
>
> Will someone please tell him he is unelected (I'm told even by his own
> members), would he kindly clear off.
>
> Australia will do. That's where he went in the middle of the crisis and
> things got too hot before.
at least he has had the courage to come back, little toni hasn't even done
that
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
>
Pat Gardiner
"Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
news:9n5k8t$3s5$3...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Pat Gardiner <Patga...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:9n5ejj$qa6$2...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > "andrew byron" <and...@elmsfarm.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:4a6c8595.01090...@posting.google.com...
> > > db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk ("David G. Bell") wrote in message
> > news:<20010902.07...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk>...
> > >snip detail<
> >
> > > Personally i think the NFU were playing with fire
> > > when they started to talk up the possible resistance by consumers to
> > > vacc meat, and pushed the consumer association to press for labelling
> > > of FMD vaccinated products.
> >
> > I could not agree more. Not for the first time, I wondered just who pays
> > these guys. There was no problem, there would have been no problem, but
> the
> > NFU decided to create one.
> >
> > If the government does now decide to go ahead with vaccination, Gill has
> > created a massive problem for an elected government. He might think that
> is
> > in the interests of the farmers. I doubt it very much.
>
> put it like this, the elected problems he might have created for the
> government would have been as nothing to the problems they would have got
if
> they had tried to vaccinate.
> Can you honestly believe MAFF could have coped?
That's not really the issue. (not to evade the question - of course not)
It was the government's decision - not his. Your leaders have been exceeding
their authority and deliberately frustrating the Government's freedom of
action. If the Government make a bad decision they have to live with the
consequences at the polls. If Gill takes it out of their hands, the farmers
and especially the small farmers have to take it on the chin.
First Williams and Hanley provoke virtual insurrection in the name of the
farmers, then Gill deliberately undermines what remains of the credibility
of British meat.
I lack the scientific knowledge to make a decision for or against
vaccination, but I do know idiots, meglomaniacs and crooks when I see them.
>
> Not only that but there was only one vaccination scheme the EU would have
> let us do and that did not allow us to do sheep.
They might well have been persuaded to change their minds. They are worried
sick about what is going on here and they are right. How we managed to avoid
re-exporting CSF to the Continent I will never know - sheer luck. We have
already had one go at sending them FMD - and you all prattle on about
infected meat coming in.
>
>
> >
> > Will someone please tell him he is unelected (I'm told even by his own
> > members), would he kindly clear off.
> >
> > Australia will do. That's where he went in the middle of the crisis and
> > things got too hot before.
>
> at least he has had the courage to come back, little toni hasn't even done
> that
Whether you or I like it or not, he is a second term PM with a big majority.
He has the job of running the country. Don't let him off the hook by
allowing your trade organisation to take all the decisions out of his hands.
You all know my opinion.
We are in the middle of not just an animal health emergency of unparallelled
ferocity, but also a law-and-order and constitutional crisis of the first
order. It will break, of course.
Blair will come out of it badly, but farming, its organisations and some of
the "great and good" especially of the agricultural wing of the Conservative
Party will be in much worse straits. I imagine that the PM is biding his
time.
Small farming will go to the wall on the altar of expediency.
When I discover, as I have recently, that MAFF have been recruiting ex-army
"enforcers" to terrorise the civil population on the say so of farming
organisations, you begin to appreciate the gravity of the crisis. They don't
need any inquiries - they need the Police and the Director of Public
Prosecutions.
Six months ago, as you know, I was on the point of seeking political asylam
abroad. As a British citizen I needed but did not get the protection of the
police. That is a national disgrace. As a witness to our premier legislative
body I am entitled to that protection. I did not get it and I intend to find
out who refused it and why. They can do their explaining to a judge.
The tide has turned for civil liberties if not for FMD.
Britain will never be quite the same again.
Pat Gardiner
PS I don't suppose the Aussies will have him!
Steve Rawlings
+0100<9n5ejj$qa6$2...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>
> > Personally i think the NFU were playing with fire
> > when they started to talk up the possible resistance by consumers to
> > vacc meat, and pushed the consumer association to press for labelling
> > of FMD vaccinated products.
>
> I could not agree more. Not for the first time, I wondered just who pays
> these guys. There was no problem, there would have been no problem, but
> the NFU decided to create one.
Ahem! AIR, two of the big supermarkets stated they had very grave
reservations about the impact on consumers concerned about meat and milk
from vaccinated animals. Without any reason IMO, I have to say.
Steve Rawlings
www.dexterbeef.co.uk
Pat Gardiner
"Steve Rawlings" <sraw...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.20010905...@srawlings.compulink.co.uk...
In the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies "Well they would wouldn't they?"
Pat Gardiner
>
> Steve Rawlings
> www.dexterbeef.co.uk
Jim Webster
problems he might have created for the
> > government would have been as nothing to the problems they would have
got
> if
> > they had tried to vaccinate.
> > Can you honestly believe MAFF could have coped?
>
> That's not really the issue. (not to evade the question - of course not)
>
> It was the government's decision - not his. Your leaders have been
exceeding
> their authority and deliberately frustrating the Government's freedom of
> action.
surely you don't believe the Nuremburg defence "we were only obeying
orders". If a government is wrong then it is up the citizen to tell them,
and if possible stop them.
when you think about it you don't believe it yourself, certainly your
actions are not of a person willing to sit round and left corruption
flourish, secure in the knowledge that the electorate will punish the
government at the ballot box.
If the Government make a bad decision they have to live with the
> consequences at the polls. If Gill takes it out of their hands, the
farmers
> and especially the small farmers have to take it on the chin.
>
if the government made that decision there might not have been any small
farmers to worry about who got blamed five years down the road.
> First Williams and Hanley provoke virtual insurrection in the name of the
> farmers, then Gill deliberately undermines what remains of the credibility
> of British meat.
and what would have happened if he hadn't acted? Vaccinate and wave farewell
to small farmers in the UK.
> I lack the scientific knowledge to make a decision for or against
> vaccination, but I do know idiots, meglomaniacs and crooks when I see
them.
>
> >
> > Not only that but there was only one vaccination scheme the EU would
have
> > let us do and that did not allow us to do sheep.
>
> They might well have been persuaded to change their minds.
with no difficulty whatsoever, the French would have sponsered the
resolution, seconded and used every political trick in the book to get it
through. After all we would just have handed them our sheep industry
They are worried
> sick about what is going on here and they are right. How we managed to
avoid
> re-exporting CSF to the Continent I will never know - sheer luck. We have
> already had one go at sending them FMD - and you all prattle on about
> infected meat coming in.
well it certainly didn't evolve here.
> >
> > >
> > > Will someone please tell him he is unelected (I'm told even by his own
> > > members), would he kindly clear off.
> > >
> > > Australia will do. That's where he went in the middle of the crisis
and
> > > things got too hot before.
> >
> > at least he has had the courage to come back, little toni hasn't even
done
> > that
>
> Whether you or I like it or not, he is a second term PM with a big
majority.
> He has the job of running the country. Don't let him off the hook by
> allowing your trade organisation to take all the decisions out of his
hands.
>
so we sit back and let the whole thing collapse for the joy of saying "I
told you so" as we queue in the dole office. I somehow don't think so.
> You all know my opinion.
>
> We are in the middle of not just an animal health emergency of
unparallelled
> ferocity, but also a law-and-order and constitutional crisis of the first
> order. It will break, of course.
>
> Blair will come out of it badly, but farming, its organisations and some
of
> the "great and good" especially of the agricultural wing of the
Conservative
> Party will be in much worse straits. I imagine that the PM is biding his
> time.
>
> Small farming will go to the wall on the altar of expediency.
>
of course, but it would have gone faster if vaccination had come in
then.Remember the King of Persia's Horse
Jim Webster
supermarkets stated they had very grave
> > reservations about the impact on consumers concerned about meat and milk
> > from vaccinated animals. Without any reason IMO, I have to say.
>
> In the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies "Well they would wouldn't
they?"
too right, and they pay for the government so I suspect their opinion was
taken into account
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
>
Philip
Rawlings <sraw...@cix.compulink.co.uk> writes
Cynical Prediction.
We vaccinate and the continent bans ALL UK Beef, Pork and Lamb.
Reason for this opinion look at the BSE situation.
Next a "Lacy type" expert Questions the safety of meat from vaccinated
stock.
--
David P
<j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote:
>
>Pat Gardiner <Patga...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>news:9n61ds$lup$2...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...> > Ahem! AIR, two of the big
>supermarkets stated they had very grave
>> > reservations about the impact on consumers concerned about meat and milk
>> > from vaccinated animals. Without any reason IMO, I have to say.
>>
>> In the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies "Well they would wouldn't
>they?"
>
>too right, and they pay for the government so I suspect their opinion was
>taken into account
>
Radio 4 this morning - Supermarkets are said to have reassured the PM
that they saw no problem over vaccinated meat....this was at the time
when Cumbria was being considered for vaccination. Sadly the line to
the NFU VP was dropped part way through his interview but the SA got
their views and opinions over clearly enough.
--
David
www.farm-direct.co.uk
local and national farmgate sales and farming information.
Dave Roberts
Rawlings <sraw...@cix.compulink.co.uk> writes
>reservations about the impact on consumers concerned about meat and milk
>from vaccinated animals. Without any reason IMO, I have to say.
Without reason ?
This morning on Sky TV it was reported that cases of vCJD are rising and
forecasts say the number could rise to 140,000 plus. This is after being
told British beef was safe to eat.
Against that background do you seriously think consumers could be
persuaded to buy infected meat from the latest farming disaster ?
Regards
Dave
--
'There's no one left to vote for only fools to vote against.'
Roy Harper 2000
Pat Gardiner
"Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
>
> Pat Gardiner <Patga...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:9n5scr$2gh$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...> > put it like this, the elected
> problems he might have created for the
> > > government would have been as nothing to the problems they would have
> got
> > if
> > > they had tried to vaccinate.
> > > Can you honestly believe MAFF could have coped?
> >
> > That's not really the issue. (not to evade the question - of course not)
> >
> > It was the government's decision - not his. Your leaders have been
> exceeding
> > their authority and deliberately frustrating the Government's freedom of
> > action.
>
> surely you don't believe the Nuremburg defence "we were only obeying
> orders".
Not totally sure I follow that, however,
>If a government is wrong then it is up the citizen to tell them,
It is their right to tell them yes, not necessarily their duty, but their
right. This right is sometimes infringed by our somewhat draconian libel and
slander laws,
> and if possible stop them.
No. Citizens/subjects may under certain situations have that right, but
organisations? I'm doubtful except in the most unusual and extreme
situations.
>
> when you think about it you don't believe it yourself, certainly your
> actions are not of a person willing to sit round and left corruption
> flourish, secure in the knowledge that the electorate will punish the
> government at the ballot box.
I simply have the right to expose the wrong, not to do anything about it,
other than strictly within the law. That is why I get concerned about libel
and slander in this country. Archer got away with it for years simply
because of this.
I'm very well aware, even now, that most of Fleet Street is sitting on
information that ought to be in the public domain in respect of CSF/FMD.
>
> If the Government make a bad decision they have to live with the
> > consequences at the polls. If Gill takes it out of their hands, the
> farmers
> > and especially the small farmers have to take it on the chin.
> >
>
> if the government made that decision there might not have been any small
> farmers to worry about who got blamed five years down the road.
Mumm, with respect that is an opinion in respect of vaccination that is
disputed by many experts.
With due humility, I suggest that few of us are
qualified to make any judgement that carries any real validity. Personally,
I think we do better to argue that the Government takes the widest possible
scientific independent advice and that they try to keep their options open.
I think we do have a right to point out that the present policy has been
heavily influenced by the NFU on purely selfish economic grounds (export
markets). This has, and will continue to do, small farming great damage.
>
>
>
> > First Williams and Hanley provoke virtual insurrection in the name of
the
> > farmers, then Gill deliberately undermines what remains of the
credibility
> > of British meat.
>
> and what would have happened if he hadn't acted? Vaccinate and wave
farewell
> to small farmers in the UK.
I doubt that. I think the same decision might well have been made for better
reasons. Gill's actions have simply antagonised large sectors of the
population. It was not just this, but the footpaths and "closing the
countryside" issues too. Gill's hysterical reactions simply made sure that
there could be no rational debate. The Government staggered from crisis to
crisis depending on where the pressure was coming from.
If the NFU and the other farmer's organisations were completely "clean",
they might just get away with it. But with millions missing and ten
investigations under way - they have no chance whatsoever of them surviving
the enquiries in their present form.
Again, the whole of Fleet Street has known for months who is for the axe -
and Gill is the first on the block. I'm told that even the mutual status of
the NFU Insurance is now under attack from former directors
>
> > I lack the scientific knowledge to make a decision for or against
> > vaccination, but I do know idiots, megalomaniacs and crooks when I see
> them.
> >
>
>
>
> > >
> > > Not only that but there was only one vaccination scheme the EU would
> have
> > > let us do and that did not allow us to do sheep.
> >
> > They might well have been persuaded to change their minds.
>
> with no difficulty whatsoever, the French would have sponsered the
> resolution, seconded and used every political trick in the book to get it
> through. After all we would just have handed them our sheep industry
We have no viable sheep industry, no viable pig industry, no viable beef
industry at least as far as exports are concerned. It is going to take years
to re-establish credibility. We have to deal with the world as it is now,
not as it would have been pre-FMD.
I see a clear link between BSE, CSF and FMD, not to mention several other
diseases. The link is our institutions, all of which have failed dismally.
It is actually a message of hope. The problems are here. It is within our
power to deal with them.
>
> They are worried
> > sick about what is going on here and they are right. How we managed to
> avoid
> > re-exporting CSF to the Continent I will never know - sheer luck. We
have
> > already had one go at sending them FMD - and you all prattle on about
> > infected meat coming in.
>
>
> well it certainly didn't evolve here.
I'm told that all diseases constantly evolve. In the modern world, there is
little we can do to offer ourselves 100 percent protection against any
disease human, vegetable or animal. That is the stark reality, but short of
closing all the seaports, all the airports and all trade, there are limits.
Look at the Channel Tunnel. The day the project was announced, I was giving
evidence to a Transport Select Committee of the H of C. The news came as a
complete surprise to the MPs as well as the rest of us. The questioning
switched to the tunnel and its effects on transport. I was completely
unprepared and had a very uncomfortable hour and a half on my feet, trying
to figure out all the implications.
During the lunch recess, we made the obvious jokes about hordes of
foreigners rushing down this tunnel and taking Canterbury. Little did we
know how prophetic that was to be.
We can't stop people getting in. How the hell do we stop disease? We have to
deal with the consequences. This is not new, just the scale of the threat is
different.
> > > >
> > > > Will someone please tell him he is unelected (I'm told even by his
own
> > > > members), would he kindly clear off.
> > > >
> > > > Australia will do. That's where he went in the middle of the crisis
> and
> > > > things got too hot before.
> > >
> > > at least he has had the courage to come back, little toni hasn't even
> done
> > > that
> >
> > Whether you or I like it or not, he is a second term PM with a big
> majority.
> > He has the job of running the country. Don't let him off the hook by
> > allowing your trade organisation to take all the decisions out of his
> hands.
> >
>
> so we sit back and let the whole thing collapse for the joy of saying "I
> told you so" as we queue in the dole office. I somehow don't think so.
No....and you should not say that to me. I was publicly pleading at the end
of last year (before FMD) for the State Veterinary Service to be placed
under the immediate and close supervision of HMC&E. I was doing something. I
saw a problem and instead of slinking away with the cash and keeping quiet,
at very considerable risk to my own safety, I wrote several reports
including the 22 required copies to The Agriculture Select Committee.
The fact that nobody did anything, apart from trying to intimidate me, is
down to British Agriculture its various pressure and lobby groups. It is on
the cards that Blair is going now to have to stand down the entire State
Veterinary Service - all 220 of them and replace from abroad. You might yet
face a Frenchman at your farm gate and be glad to see him.
Had the police been brought in when they should have been, had sticky
corporate fingers been removed from the cash box, had Gill and his ilk shut
up and allowed proper management of the epidemic, small farmers would have
been better protected, both from the disease and the repercussions
>
> > You all know my opinion.
> >
> > We are in the middle of not just an animal health emergency of
> unparalleled
> > ferocity, but also a law-and-order and constitutional crisis of the
first
> > order. It will break, of course.
> >
> > Blair will come out of it badly, but farming, its organisations and some
> of
> > the "great and good" especially of the agricultural wing of the
> Conservative
> > Party will be in much worse straits. I imagine that the PM is biding
his
> > time.
> >
> > Small farming will go to the wall on the altar of expediency.
> >
>
> of course, but it would have gone faster if vaccination had come in
> then.
I've never argued for vaccination, simply that selfish arguments sponsored
by the big players were launched against it.
>Remember the King of Persia's Horse
Who could ever forget the King of Persia's Horse.
Pat Gardiner
Jim Webster
Nuremburg defence "we were only obeying
> > orders".
>
> Not totally sure I follow that, however,
>
> >If a government is wrong then it is up the citizen to tell them,
>
> It is their right to tell them yes, not necessarily their duty, but their
> right. This right is sometimes infringed by our somewhat draconian libel
and
> slander laws,
>
> > and if possible stop them.
>
> No. Citizens/subjects may under certain situations have that right, but
> organisations? I'm doubtful except in the most unusual and extreme
> situations.
here I beg to differ. If I see another person getting mugged then it is my
duty to stop it, one way or another. If the mugger is a tattooed thug or a
government minister I see no difference
> > when you think about it you don't believe it yourself, certainly your
> > actions are not of a person willing to sit round and left corruption
> > flourish, secure in the knowledge that the electorate will punish the
> > government at the ballot box.
>
> I simply have the right to expose the wrong, not to do anything about it,
> other than strictly within the law. That is why I get concerned about
libel
> and slander in this country. Archer got away with it for years simply
> because of this.
>
> I'm very well aware, even now, that most of Fleet Street is sitting on
> information that ought to be in the public domain in respect of CSF/FMD.
> >
> > If the Government make a bad decision they have to live with the
> > > consequences at the polls. If Gill takes it out of their hands, the
> > farmers
> > > and especially the small farmers have to take it on the chin.
> > >
> >
> > if the government made that decision there might not have been any small
> > farmers to worry about who got blamed five years down the road.
>
> Mumm, with respect that is an opinion in respect of vaccination that is
> disputed by many experts.
>
none of whom are putting their livelihoods on the line therefore their
opinions are moot.
any government that can be thrown off track by someone as irrelevent as the
NFU is lost anyway
> If the NFU and the other farmer's organisations were completely "clean",
> they might just get away with it. But with millions missing and ten
> investigations under way - they have no chance whatsoever of them
surviving
> the enquiries in their present form.
>
> Again, the whole of Fleet Street has known for months who is for the axe -
> and Gill is the first on the block. I'm told that even the mutual status
of
> the NFU Insurance is now under attack from former directors
sure, greed is everywhere
> >
> > > I lack the scientific knowledge to make a decision for or against
> > > vaccination, but I do know idiots, megalomaniacs and crooks when I see
> > them.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > Not only that but there was only one vaccination scheme the EU would
> > have
> > > > let us do and that did not allow us to do sheep.
> > >
> > > They might well have been persuaded to change their minds.
> >
> > with no difficulty whatsoever, the French would have sponsered the
> > resolution, seconded and used every political trick in the book to get
it
> > through. After all we would just have handed them our sheep industry
>
> We have no viable sheep industry, no viable pig industry, no viable beef
> industry at least as far as exports are concerned. It is going to take
years
> to re-establish credibility. We have to deal with the world as it is now,
> not as it would have been pre-FMD.
>
yes, as it was back in March, april, not as it appears now with 20:20
hindsight
> I see a clear link between BSE, CSF and FMD, not to mention several other
> diseases. The link is our institutions, all of which have failed dismally.
> It is actually a message of hope. The problems are here. It is within our
> power to deal with them.
> >
> > They are worried
> > > sick about what is going on here and they are right. How we managed to
> > avoid
> > > re-exporting CSF to the Continent I will never know - sheer luck. We
> have
> > > already had one go at sending them FMD - and you all prattle on about
> > > infected meat coming in.
> >
> >
> > well it certainly didn't evolve here.
>
> I'm told that all diseases constantly evolve. In the modern world, there
is
> little we can do to offer ourselves 100 percent protection against any
> disease human, vegetable or animal. That is the stark reality, but short
of
> closing all the seaports, all the airports and all trade, there are
limits.
we could do something. Nice piece in the Telegraph, the Americans use
sniffer dogs to check consignments looking for illegal meat
>
> Look at the Channel Tunnel. The day the project was announced, I was
giving
> evidence to a Transport Select Committee of the H of C. The news came as a
> complete surprise to the MPs as well as the rest of us. The questioning
> switched to the tunnel and its effects on transport. I was completely
> unprepared and had a very uncomfortable hour and a half on my feet, trying
> to figure out all the implications.
>
> During the lunch recess, we made the obvious jokes about hordes of
> foreigners rushing down this tunnel and taking Canterbury. Little did we
> know how prophetic that was to be.
>
> We can't stop people getting in. How the hell do we stop disease? We have
to
> deal with the consequences. This is not new, just the scale of the threat
is
> different.
wouldn't be so bad if they did deal with the consequences. As it is they
merely offload the problem. Just impose fines on hauliers and shippers. Same
with fmd, just offload the problem onto farmers
last one was spanish so no change there
>
> Had the police been brought in when they should have been, had sticky
> corporate fingers been removed from the cash box, had Gill and his ilk
shut
> up and allowed proper management of the epidemic, small farmers would have
> been better protected, both from the disease and the repercussions
> >
> > > You all know my opinion.
> > >
> > > We are in the middle of not just an animal health emergency of
> > unparalleled
> > > ferocity, but also a law-and-order and constitutional crisis of the
> first
> > > order. It will break, of course.
> > >
> > > Blair will come out of it badly, but farming, its organisations and
some
> > of
> > > the "great and good" especially of the agricultural wing of the
> > Conservative
> > > Party will be in much worse straits. I imagine that the PM is biding
> his
> > > time.
> > >
> > > Small farming will go to the wall on the altar of expediency.
> > >
> >
> > of course, but it would have gone faster if vaccination had come in
> > then.
>
> I've never argued for vaccination, simply that selfish arguments sponsored
> by the big players were launched against it.
>
what selfish arguments?
the biggest vested interest was the companies who will make an absolute
killing selling the vaccine if we bought it,
please can I have the concession for training the vaccinating officers
Oz
>
>Against that background do you seriously think consumers could be
>persuaded to buy infected meat from the latest farming disaster ?
I think most people are familiar with vaccinations.
They aren't, or weren't, familiar with prionic diseases.
ISTR that beef consumption is pretty well back in line with consumption
of other meats, and has been for some time.
--
Oz
Pat Gardiner
"Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
>
> Pat Gardiner <Patga...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:9n7fsu$rhg$3...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...> > surely you don't believe the
> Nuremburg defence "we were only obeying
> > > orders".
> >
> > Not totally sure I follow that, however,
> >
> > >If a government is wrong then it is up the citizen to tell them,
> >
> > It is their right to tell them yes, not necessarily their duty, but
their
> > right. This right is sometimes infringed by our somewhat draconian libel
> and
> > slander laws,
> >
> > > and if possible stop them.
> >
> > No. Citizens/subjects may under certain situations have that right, but
> > organisations? I'm doubtful except in the most unusual and extreme
> > situations.
>
>
> here I beg to differ. If I see another person getting mugged then it is my
> duty to stop it, one way or another. If the mugger is a tattooed thug or a
> government minister I see no difference
Why do I allow myself to get drawn into these pointless arguments with you ?
:o((
I said "Citizens/subjects may under certain situations have that right"
Mugging would obviously be such a situation.
I said "but organisations?" Can you see an organisation stopping a mugging
by thug, government minister or anyone else?
OTOH, it could be said that the NFU has thoroughly mugged the taxpayer. OK,
I concede the point. We are all entitled to use other organisations to try
to stop them.
That's why I allow myself to get drawn into these silly arguments ;o)))
>
>snip<
> > >
> > > If the Government make a bad decision they have to live with the
> > > > consequences at the polls. If Gill takes it out of their hands, the
> > > farmers
> > > > and especially the small farmers have to take it on the chin.
> > > >
> > >
> > > if the government made that decision there might not have been any
small
> > > farmers to worry about who got blamed five years down the road.
> >
> > Mumm, with respect that is an opinion in respect of vaccination that is
> > disputed by many experts.
> >
>
> none of whom are putting their livelihoods on the line therefore their
> opinions are moot.
It is called "scientific detatchment." I don't believe in it very much
either, but that is not an excuse for arguing the exact opposite.
>snip<
> >
> > I doubt that. I think the same decision might well have been made for
> better
> > reasons. Gill's actions have simply antagonised large sectors of the
> > population. It was not just this, but the footpaths and "closing the
> > countryside" issues too. Gill's hysterical reactions simply made sure
that
> > there could be no rational debate. The Government staggered from crisis
to
> > crisis depending on where the pressure was coming from.
> >
>
> any government that can be thrown off track by someone as irrelevent as
the
> NFU is lost anyway
When you haven't got a clue what to do in an emergency and someone is as
loud and convinced (not convincing) as the NFU, you tend to take the line of
least resistance.
The NFU claim to represent you and other farmers. If they don't disown them
and resign. BTW, I can remember you sticking up for them. Is this the sign
of doubts creeping in?
Anyway whether we like it or not the Government have 4 more years, before we
even have the chance to tell them to get lost.
>
>snip<
>
> wouldn't be so bad if they did deal with the consequences. As it is they
> merely offload the problem. Just impose fines on hauliers and shippers.
Same
> with fmd, just offload the problem onto farmers
There is no question that the current border control problems are severe.
Given the situation that we have been too lax in dealing with infringements,
Britain is too attractive. We are not alone with this problem. The US
suffers similar problems.
In shipping, I actually had to handle illegal refugees going back 30 years
when a sinking e-boat arrived in Harwich towed by a dredger. You MUST have
penalties for hauliers and shipping companies taking insufficient care. In
the same way you MUST have penalties for anyone importing infected meat.
That does not mean that this will solve the problem, it will not. The best
you can hope is that it will discourage evasion, no more.
Just as you have to deal with an illegal refugee humanely once they are in
the country, you must deal with FMD.
Don't forget, last year, I had to threaten to go abroad and seek political
ayslum myself. My mother had to run from her home at the age of 17 and
crossed to California via Canada on her own because of her political
views...and I saw Yugoslavia disintegrate. Refugees and their problems
strike a chord with some of us. They are not all bogus.
If you don't let people come to your shore, you cannot help the valid
claimants. If you don't allow food in, you can't feed your population. All a
question of balanced views.
>
>snip<
> >
> > The fact that nobody did anything, apart from trying to intimidate me,
is
> > down to British Agriculture its various pressure and lobby groups. It is
> on
> > the cards that Blair is going now to have to stand down the entire State
> > Veterinary Service - all 220 of them and replace from abroad. You might
> yet
> > face a Frenchman at your farm gate and be glad to see him.
>
> last one was spanish so no change there
I hope you were polite to him/her :o)
>snip<
>> I've never argued for vaccination, simply that selfish arguments
sponsored
>> by the big players were launched against it.
>
> what selfish arguments?
Their export trade.
>
> the biggest vested interest was the companies who will make an absolute
> killing selling the vaccine if we bought it,
>
> please can I have the concession for training the vaccinating officers
No. You are not to be trusted with foreigners. You will probably encourage
them to stick the needles in one another.
>
Pat Gardiner
> --
> Jim Webster
>
> "The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
>
> 'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
>sniped<
Jim Webster
> > >
> > > No. Citizens/subjects may under certain situations have that right,
but
> > > organisations? I'm doubtful except in the most unusual and extreme
> > > situations.
> >
> >
> > here I beg to differ. If I see another person getting mugged then it is
my
> > duty to stop it, one way or another. If the mugger is a tattooed thug or
a
> > government minister I see no difference
>
> Why do I allow myself to get drawn into these pointless arguments with you
?
> :o((
>
> I said "Citizens/subjects may under certain situations have that right"
> Mugging would obviously be such a situation.
>
> I said "but organisations?" Can you see an organisation stopping a
mugging
> by thug, government minister or anyone else?
>
> OTOH, it could be said that the NFU has thoroughly mugged the taxpayer.
OK,
> I concede the point. We are all entitled to use other organisations to try
> to stop them.
>
explain just where the NFU has mugged the tax payer. Remembering that what
King said on the today programme this morning was that he had talked to
farmers and farmers leaders and farmers told him they were against
vaccination. The NFU was reflecting the belief of its membership
> That's why I allow myself to get drawn into these silly arguments ;o)))
> >
> >snip<
> > > >
> > > > If the Government make a bad decision they have to live with the
> > > > > consequences at the polls. If Gill takes it out of their hands,
the
> > > > farmers
> > > > > and especially the small farmers have to take it on the chin.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > if the government made that decision there might not have been any
> small
> > > > farmers to worry about who got blamed five years down the road.
> > >
> > > Mumm, with respect that is an opinion in respect of vaccination that
is
> > > disputed by many experts.
> > >
> >
> > none of whom are putting their livelihoods on the line therefore their
> > opinions are moot.
>
> It is called "scientific detatchment." I don't believe in it very much
> either, but that is not an excuse for arguing the exact opposite.
if you are under fire do you listen too much to the advice of someone who
hasn't been
>
> >snip<
> > >
> > > I doubt that. I think the same decision might well have been made for
> > better
> > > reasons. Gill's actions have simply antagonised large sectors of the
> > > population. It was not just this, but the footpaths and "closing the
> > > countryside" issues too. Gill's hysterical reactions simply made sure
> that
> > > there could be no rational debate. The Government staggered from
crisis
> to
> > > crisis depending on where the pressure was coming from.
> > >
> >
> > any government that can be thrown off track by someone as irrelevent as
> the
> > NFU is lost anyway
>
> When you haven't got a clue what to do in an emergency and someone is as
> loud and convinced (not convincing) as the NFU, you tend to take the line
of
> least resistance.
>
so we now have a government who is swayed by loud noises and takes the line
of least resistance. I suggest that it is the duty of a citizen to block
their actions because they are obviously not responsible for them
> The NFU claim to represent you and other farmers. If they don't disown
them
> and resign. BTW, I can remember you sticking up for them. Is this the sign
> of doubts creeping in?
See above about Kings comments
I am always polite to competant professionals
Oz
>explain just where the NFU has mugged the tax payer. Remembering that what
>King said on the today programme this morning was that he had talked to
>farmers and farmers leaders and farmers told him they were against
>vaccination. The NFU was reflecting the belief of its membership
I don;t think this is right. IIRC government proposed vaccination and
the NFU came up with a series of questions that needed to be answered so
we all knew where we were going. AFAIK no proper answer to all those
questions was ever received and vaccination was dropped.
This is not the same as being against vaccination, it is against
vaccination done without examining the consequences and having a pre-
thought-out response to the obvious problems it would produce.
In other words against a vaccination scheme going off at half cock and
that didn't have any idea of the consequences or where it was going.
--
Oz
This post is worth precisely what you paid for it.
Pat Gardiner
"Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
>
> Pat Gardiner <Patga...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:9n7vtp$skb$5...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk
>snip<
> >
> > I said "Citizens/subjects may under certain situations have that right"
> > Mugging would obviously be such a situation.
> >
> > I said "but organisations?" Can you see an organisation stopping a
> mugging
> > by thug, government minister or anyone else?
> >
> > OTOH, it could be said that the NFU has thoroughly mugged the taxpayer.
> OK,
> > I concede the point. We are all entitled to use other organisations to
try
> > to stop them.
> >
>
> explain just where the NFU has mugged the tax payer. Remembering that what
> King said on the today programme this morning was that he had talked to
> farmers and farmers leaders and farmers told him they were against
> vaccination. The NFU was reflecting the belief of its membership
I was not referring to the vaccination business. The involvement of the
farmers organisation in the somewhat doubtful financial dealing during
epidemics was in my mind. Much more about this will come out in due course.
In the end, it will be the financial trail that will bring the farmers'
representative organisations to grief.
The "farmers against vaccination incident" would have been more acceptable
if it had not followed the "lets close the countryside", "close all the
footpaths", "its all the fault of foreign meat" and similar examples of a
small elite getting rather above themselves and interfering with the life of
the nation.
A lot of people out there are very angry indeed with Gill and his
colleagues. The irony is that his ridiculous assumption of power that
correctly belongs to the government has lost small livestock farmers the
sympathy to which they were fully entitled. It has also cost British
industry and the taxpayer a fortune, and many individuals their homes and
livelihoods....and they are still at it. The difference is nobody listens to
them any more.
He could have tried to lead the farmers in more constructive paths. I recall
his organisation's participation at a very interesting meeting in Norwich
last year. I'm trying to get a list of exactly who was there and who they
were purporting to represent. When I do, I will have much more to say.
>
>
> > That's why I allow myself to get drawn into these silly arguments ;o)))
> > >
> > >snip<
> > > > >
> > > > > If the Government make a bad decision they have to live with the
> > > > > > consequences at the polls. If Gill takes it out of their hands,
> the
> > > > > farmers
> > > > > > and especially the small farmers have to take it on the chin.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > if the government made that decision there might not have been any
> > small
> > > > > farmers to worry about who got blamed five years down the road.
> > > >
> > > > Mumm, with respect that is an opinion in respect of vaccination that
> is
> > > > disputed by many experts.
> > > >
> > >
> > > none of whom are putting their livelihoods on the line therefore their
> > > opinions are moot.
> >
> > It is called "scientific detatchment." I don't believe in it very much
> > either, but that is not an excuse for arguing the exact opposite.
>
> if you are under fire do you listen too much to the advice of someone who
> hasn't been
Yes, I do. When you are under pressure the best advice often comes from an
"outsider." They see things that your rage or fear blinds you to.
When was it otherwise? Bread and circuses, bread and circuses.
> I suggest that it is the duty of a citizen to block
> their actions because they are obviously not responsible for them
You may protest, but not block. That was Hanley's mistake.
>
>
> > The NFU claim to represent you and other farmers. If they don't disown
> them
> > and resign. BTW, I can remember you sticking up for them. Is this the
sign
> > of doubts creeping in?
>
> See above about Kings comments
I'm not backing King. I'm pointing out that in blocking King, the NFU went
outside their democratic remit. They will pay for that act of impudence. Had
it been a single act it would have been forgiven, but it was multiple and it
gives the Government the get out clause they were seeking.
What a bunch of plonkers! Looks like I'm the only credible resistance (vbg)
>snip<
Why do I have to do all the sniping with you?
> >
>
> I am always polite to competant professionals
Define competence. (after Oz)
Pat Gardiner
>
>
> --
> Jim Webster
>
> "The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
>
> > snip Arab philosopher pending competence testing<>
>
> >
> > >snip<
> >
Pat Gardiner
"Oz" <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ScK5OjBN...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
> Jim Webster writes
>
> >explain just where the NFU has mugged the tax payer. Remembering that
what
> >King said on the today programme this morning was that he had talked to
> >farmers and farmers leaders and farmers told him they were against
> >vaccination. The NFU was reflecting the belief of its membership
>
> I don;t think this is right. IIRC government proposed vaccination and
> the NFU came up with a series of questions that needed to be answered so
> we all knew where we were going. AFAIK no proper answer to all those
> questions was ever received and vaccination was dropped.
That is not what King is saying
Quote
Professor King said that in the spring he suggested to the Prime Minister a
vaccination programme in Cumbria as a supplementary weapon to culling.
But he said he realised the plan would be pointless because he could not be
certain all farmers would allow vets onto their premises to carry out the
programme.
"I spoke at length to various members of the farmers' unions and... had to
report back to the Prime Minister that we could not be sure of farmer
co-operation on this," he told Today.
Unquote
>
> This is not the same as being against vaccination, it is against
> vaccination done without examining the consequences and having a pre-
> thought-out response to the obvious problems it would produce.
>
> In other words against a vaccination scheme going off at half cock and
> that didn't have any idea of the consequences or where it was going.
So was the cull. Remove "vaccination "from the above two paragraphs and
replace with "culling".
BTW, will someone please tell Oz to stop killfiling me? It makes a nonsense
of his replies.
Actually, I think he is peeking, but is smart enough to make it look as if
he isn't. Strangely MAFF does the same thing with my website. Didin't once
work for MAFF did he? <vwg>
Pat Gardiner
An independant view is something to be treasured.
Jim Webster
>
> "Oz" <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ScK5OjBN...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
> > Jim Webster writes
> >
> > >explain just where the NFU has mugged the tax payer. Remembering that
> what
> > >King said on the today programme this morning was that he had talked to
> > >farmers and farmers leaders and farmers told him they were against
> > >vaccination. The NFU was reflecting the belief of its membership
> >
> > I don;t think this is right. IIRC government proposed vaccination and
> > the NFU came up with a series of questions that needed to be answered so
> > we all knew where we were going. AFAIK no proper answer to all those
> > questions was ever received and vaccination was dropped.
>
> That is not what King is saying
>
> Quote
>
> Professor King said that in the spring he suggested to the Prime Minister
a
> vaccination programme in Cumbria as a supplementary weapon to culling.
>
> But he said he realised the plan would be pointless because he could not
be
> certain all farmers would allow vets onto their premises to carry out the
> programme.
>
> "I spoke at length to various members of the farmers' unions and... had to
> report back to the Prime Minister that we could not be sure of farmer
> co-operation on this," he told Today.
from memory only, but I listened to him on the today programme and I'd go
bail he actually said he had talked to farmers and their representitives
>
> Unquote
>
> >
> > This is not the same as being against vaccination, it is against
> > vaccination done without examining the consequences and having a pre-
> > thought-out response to the obvious problems it would produce.
> >
> > In other words against a vaccination scheme going off at half cock and
> > that didn't have any idea of the consequences or where it was going.
>
> So was the cull. Remove "vaccination "from the above two paragraphs and
> replace with "culling".
except the cull seems to have worked. The flare up in Allendale seems to be
because they didn't take infected sheep back arround case 1070 because of
pressure from the NSA
Jim Webster
you cannot lose something you didn't have. If you want sympathy look in the
dictionary, you will find it between sh*t and Syphilis
Anyway he never assumed power. He merely told the government that his
members were not convinced and therefore might not let vets on the farm to
vaccinate.
It has also cost British
> industry and the taxpayer a fortune, and many individuals their homes and
> livelihoods....and they are still at it. The difference is nobody listens
to
> them any more.
>
no one listened to them before or we wouldn't be in this state to start off
with. The NFU has pointed out for some time that we were importing meat from
countries with endemic fmd and still are.
> He could have tried to lead the farmers in more constructive paths.
Hang on a minute. On vaccination He was given less than a weeks deadline, he
didn't have time to lead anyone. Little toni tried to bounce farmers into
vaccination so he could have his election on May 6th. That was the picture
as seen throughout much of the rural area and farmers reacted accordingly
> > if you are under fire do you listen too much to the advice of someone
who
> > hasn't been
>
> Yes, I do. When you are under pressure the best advice often comes from an
> "outsider." They see things that your rage or fear blinds you to.
they also miss the blindingly obvious. There wasn't the vaccine available
for all these retrospective schemes that have been suggested
then don't expect us to treat them with any respect
>
> > I suggest that it is the duty of a citizen to block
> > their actions because they are obviously not responsible for them
>
> You may protest, but not block. That was Hanley's mistake.
what mistake. Thanks in a small part to Hanley and in a large part to a lot
of wagon drivers, pensioners, farmers, taxi drivers and others the
government had a shot across its bows.
> >
> > > The NFU claim to represent you and other farmers. If they don't disown
> > them
> > > and resign. BTW, I can remember you sticking up for them. Is this the
> sign
> > > of doubts creeping in?
> >
> > See above about Kings comments
>
> I'm not backing King. I'm pointing out that in blocking King, the NFU went
> outside their democratic remit. They will pay for that act of impudence.
Had
> it been a single act it would have been forgiven, but it was multiple and
it
> gives the Government the get out clause they were seeking.
they didn't block King. Ben gill merely pointed out that farmers weren't
convinced. How could he block the government?
>
> What a bunch of plonkers! Looks like I'm the only credible resistance
(vbg)
>
> >snip<
>
> Why do I have to do all the sniping with you?
> > >
> >
> > I am always polite to competant professionals
>
> Define competence. (after Oz)
adequate for the task at hand
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
> Pat Gardiner
James Annan
> I don;t think this is right. IIRC government proposed vaccination and
> the NFU came up with a series of questions that needed to be answered so
> we all knew where we were going. AFAIK no proper answer to all those
> questions was ever received and vaccination was dropped.
>
> This is not the same as being against vaccination, it is against
> vaccination done without examining the consequences and having a pre-
> thought-out response to the obvious problems it would produce.
>
> In other words against a vaccination scheme going off at half cock and
> that didn't have any idea of the consequences or where it was going.
It's a shame that the NFU didn't give such close scrutiny to the
stamping out policy, don't you think? I'm sure they could have thought
of questions along the lines of:
How many animals are we going to have to slaughter to eradicate the
disease?
What are we going to do about the animal welfare problems caused by
the movement bans?
How much is this going to cost the taxpayer?
How long are we going to lose our oh-so-essential export markets for?
How likely is it that the disease will not be eradicated by the end of
the summer?
What happens in this case?
In an uncertain world, it's always easy to find criticisms of a
strategy you don't like.
We still haven't seen the worst-case scenarios, which include:
A) we eradicate (eventually) only to have another outbreak in a year
or 5.
B) Someone else (USA?) has a major outbreak, and the developed world
adopts vaccination (probably with improved vaccination/testing which
is in the pipeline) thus rendering our precious disease-free status
irrelevant.
C) we fail to eradicate indefinitely.
Readers with sufficiently long memories may recall I suggested these
possibilities many months ago when vaccination was first being
seriously debated. Who is going to bet against any of them happening
now?
James
James Annan
> Pat Gardiner <Patga...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:9nal57$3bm$2...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > colleagues. The irony is that his ridiculous assumption of power that
> > correctly belongs to the government has lost small livestock farmers the
> > sympathy to which they were fully entitled.
>
>
> you cannot lose something you didn't have.
I think this shows a breathtaking arrogance and narrow-mindedness.
Back in February and March, small rural tourist businesses all over
the country basically shut down their businesses in the belief that
this would somehow be helpful to farmers. OK, it was naive and
ignorant of them to do so, as it was always pretty clear to anyone
with an open mind and half a clue that tourism had nothing to do with
the spread of FMD, but their ignorance was at least in part due to the
misinformation propagated by the extreme end of the 'off my land'
tendency and also well-meaning ignorant do-gooders who spouted such
nonsense as 'ooh, it's not worth the risk, however small'.
Of course the pusillanimous government must take their share of the
blame, by allowing the blanket shutdown of the countryside in the
first place. If I thought they were that competent, I would suspect
that they were deliberately giving farmers (and tory councils) enough
rope to hang themselves with. But no doubt they were just following
'public opinion' rather than trying to govern responsibly.
Nevertheless, it's pretty clear that the public's heart was in the
right place, even if their head wasn't. The NFU could have adopted a
positive, constructive 'visit the countryside and buy local produce'
message to take advantage of this sympathy, but instead they chose
'get off my land'. And none of the farmers here had the guts or
intelligence to publically oppose them.
James
James Annan
>
> they didn't block King. Ben gill merely pointed out that farmers weren't
> convinced. How could he block the government?
>
Oh don't be ridiculous. You know fine that all it would have taken is
a bit of obstruction or non-cooperation to render the whole idea
impractical. Why are you so desperate to re-write history?
James
Dave Roberts
e.knows.where.by.now> writes
>what mistake. Thanks in a small part to Hanley and in a large part to a lot
>of wagon drivers, pensioners, farmers, taxi drivers and others the
>government had a shot across its bows.
Which had no effect whatsoever except to alienate the farmers from the
government and the public. I suspect the full consequences of that shot
across the bows are still to come.
As Pat rightly states it was a big mistake.
Jim Webster
Dave Roberts <da...@studio-33.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vFL3iUAG...@smartproof.fsnet.co.uk...
> In article <9nbcki$n3q$4...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, Jim Webster <jim@everyon
> e.knows.where.by.now> writes
> >what mistake. Thanks in a small part to Hanley and in a large part to a
lot
> >of wagon drivers, pensioners, farmers, taxi drivers and others the
> >government had a shot across its bows.
>
> Which had no effect whatsoever except to alienate the farmers from the
> government and the public. I suspect the full consequences of that shot
> across the bows are still to come.
price of fuel stopped rising
haulage costs have fallen
Pat Gardiner
"Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
I wish they had also pointed out that some of their bigger and more
influential members actually owned farms abroad as well as in the UK. Some
of these farms were in areas where disease is endemic - and that disease
actually broke out on their farms.
I don't have the resources to fully investigate all this, but I do know the
infected meat stories were deliberate plants from MAFF. Some of the farmers'
organisation's were doing the same.
The Newcastle infected meat story was so technically ludicrous, it could not
possibly be true. That is what originally alerted me to something bigger
going on behind the scenes than just blood test faking and record tampering.
>
> > He could have tried to lead the farmers in more constructive paths.
>
> Hang on a minute. On vaccination He was given less than a weeks deadline,
he
> didn't have time to lead anyone. Little toni tried to bounce farmers into
> vaccination so he could have his election on May 6th. That was the picture
> as seen throughout much of the rural area and farmers reacted accordingly
> > > if you are under fire do you listen too much to the advice of someone
> who
> > > hasn't been
> >
> > Yes, I do. When you are under pressure the best advice often comes from
an
> > "outsider." They see things that your rage or fear blinds you to.
>
> they also miss the blindingly obvious. There wasn't the vaccine available
> for all these retrospective schemes that have been suggested
Then the government would not have been able to impliment them, would they?
It is not the NFU's job to make those judgements. It is highly unlikely they
actually had the data anyway. MAFF only ever provides the data they want
out. If they want to hide something, there is no data.
>snip<
>
>
> >
> > > I suggest that it is the duty of a citizen to block
> > > their actions because they are obviously not responsible for them
> >
> > You may protest, but not block. That was Hanley's mistake.
>
> what mistake. Thanks in a small part to Hanley and in a large part to a
lot
> of wagon drivers, pensioners, farmers, taxi drivers and others the
> government had a shot across its bows.
You forget I was in haulage for years. I even employed the father of one of
the men convicted of blocking the public highway. Almost none of the
arguments in respect of road haulage had any validity anyway. The small pig
farmers that got involved round here were broke because they signed the
wrong deals with the conglomerates. Hanley and Williams are rabble rousers
picking up the fact that the Thatcher years led to a lot of people with no
experience of business setting up on cheap credit and then finding things
tough.
They mostly needed practical help, not taking to the streets.
They did not put a shot across anyones bows. They just took the good name of
small farmers and dragged it through the mud.
>
>
> > >
> > > > The NFU claim to represent you and other farmers. If they don't
disown
> > > them
> > > > and resign. BTW, I can remember you sticking up for them. Is this
the
> > sign
> > > > of doubts creeping in?
> > >
> > > See above about Kings comments
> >
> > I'm not backing King. I'm pointing out that in blocking King, the NFU
went
> > outside their democratic remit. They will pay for that act of impudence.
> Had
> > it been a single act it would have been forgiven, but it was multiple
and
> it
> > gives the Government the get out clause they were seeking.
>
> they didn't block King. Ben gill merely pointed out that farmers weren't
> convinced. How could he block the government?
Usual way. Implied threats and the help of elements within the Civil
Service.
Pat Gardiner
"Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
You may well be right. The point is that the victors write the history
books.
>
>
> >
> > Unquote
> >
> > >
> > > This is not the same as being against vaccination, it is against
> > > vaccination done without examining the consequences and having a pre-
> > > thought-out response to the obvious problems it would produce.
> > >
> > > In other words against a vaccination scheme going off at half cock and
> > > that didn't have any idea of the consequences or where it was going.
> >
> > So was the cull. Remove "vaccination "from the above two paragraphs and
> > replace with "culling".
>
> except the cull seems to have worked. The flare up in Allendale seems to
be
> because they didn't take infected sheep back arround case 1070 because of
> pressure from the NSA
OK on some occasions it wasn't just the NFU but the NSA. During the CSF
outbreak it was the NPA making the running. The point is that all of these
people all had far too much to say for themselves. They were always on the
fringe of the law and most of their efforts seemed to be directed to
protecting big business and their over-rated export trade.
The role of the NPA in the CSF outbreak needs very close examination indeed.
I'm an outsider don't forget. I accept that someone claiming to be a
farmer's representative is expected to be what he says he is.
If not, you have to disown him.
Pat Gardiner
Pat Gardiner
"Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
>
> Dave Roberts <da...@studio-33.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:vFL3iUAG...@smartproof.fsnet.co.uk...
> > In article <9nbcki$n3q$4...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, Jim Webster <jim@everyon
> > e.knows.where.by.now> writes
> > >what mistake. Thanks in a small part to Hanley and in a large part to a
> lot
> > >of wagon drivers, pensioners, farmers, taxi drivers and others the
> > >government had a shot across its bows.
> >
> > Which had no effect whatsoever except to alienate the farmers from the
> > government and the public. I suspect the full consequences of that shot
> > across the bows are still to come.
>
> price of fuel stopped rising
>
> haulage costs have fallen
Haulage is an almost perfect market situation. Pure supply and demand.
Too much easy credit to the wrong people. A lot of employees decide to
strike out on their own. Borrow the money from the bank on the security of
their home (Blame the bank for that - they are well-covered). Capacity
increases. Downturn in world trade, supply of work diminishes, rates fall.
Marginal operators go out of business, lose their homes to repay the bank.
Equilibrium returns.
Haulage costs have nothing to do with it, over anything but the very short
term. Rates are not determined by costs, but by supply and demand.
It is hard to persuade a small haulier of that. They see the bills pouring
in. But the big boys get those same bills in exactly the same way - and if
they over borrow before a downturn, they go the same way. Usually however,
the collapse of the small hauliers reduces capacity before they hit the wall
Sound familiar?
Pat Gardiner
Jim Webster
> > from memory only, but I listened to him on the today programme and I'd
go
> > bail he actually said he had talked to farmers and their representitives
>
> You may well be right. The point is that the victors write the history
> books.
> >
exactly. So it didn't matter what Ben Gill did or didn't do, he would be
fingered with the blame anyway. There he might as well do what he thinks
right in the hope it works
> > except the cull seems to have worked. The flare up in Allendale seems to
> be
> > because they didn't take infected sheep back arround case 1070 because
of
> > pressure from the NSA
>
> OK on some occasions it wasn't just the NFU but the NSA. During the CSF
> outbreak it was the NPA making the running.
from this point, taken separately from the previous bit, you can put in
virtually any trade union or lobby group
The point is that all of these
> people all had far too much to say for themselves. They were always on the
> fringe of the law and most of their efforts seemed to be directed to
> protecting big business and their over-rated export trade.
so effectively farmers are no different from the rest of the population,
surprise, surprise
>
> The role of the NPA in the CSF outbreak needs very close examination
indeed.
> I'm an outsider don't forget. I accept that someone claiming to be a
> farmer's representative is expected to be what he says he is.
>
> If not, you have to disown him.
if too many farmers feel he is doing a bad job, he will go
Jim Webster
whatsoever except to alienate the farmers from the
> > > government and the public. I suspect the full consequences of that
shot
> > > across the bows are still to come.
> >
> > price of fuel stopped rising
> >
> > haulage costs have fallen
>
> Haulage is an almost perfect market situation. Pure supply and demand.
actually not. Remember you have to be ticketted for a lot of types of loads
which means that the smaller firm cannot afford the specialist training and
staff OR goes over entirely to this sort of trade. Similarly in agriculture
we have problems with vehicle access on some farms. It is virtually
impossible for us to get access for artics because of the road, hence there
are a lot of firms that we cannot deal with.
>
> Too much easy credit to the wrong people. A lot of employees decide to
> strike out on their own. Borrow the money from the bank on the security of
> their home (Blame the bank for that - they are well-covered). Capacity
> increases. Downturn in world trade, supply of work diminishes, rates fall.
> Marginal operators go out of business, lose their homes to repay the bank.
> Equilibrium returns.
>
> Haulage costs have nothing to do with it, over anything but the very short
> term. Rates are not determined by costs, but by supply and demand.
see above. Also note that we have to survive in the short term for the long
term to be of interest
>
> It is hard to persuade a small haulier of that. They see the bills pouring
> in. But the big boys get those same bills in exactly the same way - and if
> they over borrow before a downturn, they go the same way. Usually however,
> the collapse of the small hauliers reduces capacity before they hit the
wall
not only that but the big hauliers negociated cheap rate diesel by massive
bulk buying and it is easier for the big boys to justify the computerised
tracking and management systems
Jim Webster
> > no one listened to them before or we wouldn't be in this state to start
> off
> > with. The NFU has pointed out for some time that we were importing meat
> from
> > countries with endemic fmd and still are.
>
> I wish they had also pointed out that some of their bigger and more
> influential members actually owned farms abroad as well as in the UK. Some
> of these farms were in areas where disease is endemic - and that disease
> actually broke out on their farms.
so what, you cannot import cattle, sheep or pigs into the UK without
quantantine and I cannot imagine FMD going undetected in cattle and pigs
although it might in sheep. However who are these people illegally importing
livestock and how do they get them through the ports.
> > they also miss the blindingly obvious. There wasn't the vaccine
available
> > for all these retrospective schemes that have been suggested
>
> Then the government would not have been able to impliment them, would
they?
> It is not the NFU's job to make those judgements. It is highly unlikely
they
> actually had the data anyway. MAFF only ever provides the data they want
> out. If they want to hide something, there is no data.
> >snip<
the NFU made a judgement. The farmers on the ground don't trust the
government. So the NFU came up with the 50 questions. Farmers read the
answers, thanks in part to JM, and decided the government was wiggling
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > I suggest that it is the duty of a citizen to block
> > > > their actions because they are obviously not responsible for them
> > >
> > > You may protest, but not block. That was Hanley's mistake.
> >
> > what mistake. Thanks in a small part to Hanley and in a large part to a
> lot
> > of wagon drivers, pensioners, farmers, taxi drivers and others the
> > government had a shot across its bows.
>
> You forget I was in haulage for years. I even employed the father of one
of
> the men convicted of blocking the public highway. Almost none of the
> arguments in respect of road haulage had any validity anyway. The small
pig
> farmers that got involved round here were broke because they signed the
> wrong deals with the conglomerates. Hanley and Williams are rabble rousers
> picking up the fact that the Thatcher years led to a lot of people with no
> experience of business setting up on cheap credit and then finding things
> tough.
>
> They mostly needed practical help, not taking to the streets.
>
> They did not put a shot across anyones bows. They just took the good name
of
> small farmers and dragged it through the mud.
balls, what good name. Since when was it worth a penny. Remember I have
lived a lifetime of "you never see a farmer on a bike." Look at the
misconceptions we get from the x posting walking groups. You aren't going to
try to tell me that this is all due to the last couple of years. I went
through an industrial grammer school in the 1970s, the attitude is no
different now to then,
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > > The NFU claim to represent you and other farmers. If they don't
> disown
> > > > them
> > > > > and resign. BTW, I can remember you sticking up for them. Is this
> the
> > > sign
> > > > > of doubts creeping in?
> > > >
> > > > See above about Kings comments
> > >
> > > I'm not backing King. I'm pointing out that in blocking King, the NFU
> went
> > > outside their democratic remit. They will pay for that act of
impudence.
> > Had
> > > it been a single act it would have been forgiven, but it was multiple
> and
> > it
> > > gives the Government the get out clause they were seeking.
> >
> > they didn't block King. Ben gill merely pointed out that farmers weren't
> > convinced. How could he block the government?
>
> Usual way. Implied threats and the help of elements within the Civil
> Service.
so we have a government that weak? Lucky we took a strong stand then isn't
it
Jim Webster
James Annan <jd...@pol.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:35ac5ae8.01090...@posting.google.com...
certainly. And who could Gill order to block the government? Who could he
give instructions to?
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
>
> James
Jim Webster
news:<9nbcki$n3q$4...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > Pat Gardiner <Patga...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > news:9nal57$3bm$2...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > A lot of people out there are very angry indeed with Gill and his
> > > colleagues. The irony is that his ridiculous assumption of power that
> > > correctly belongs to the government has lost small livestock farmers
the
> > > sympathy to which they were fully entitled.
> >
> >
> > you cannot lose something you didn't have.
>
> I think this shows a breathtaking arrogance and narrow-mindedness
no just a lifetime of bitter experience farming on the edge of an industrial
town. We have a small proportion of the population who know a bit, do come
out into the country on a reasonably regular basis and some of whom are
sympathetic.
We have a large urban population who neither know nor care.
The B&B people are equally mixed. Some were farms. some are now making an
absolute killing having put the B&B into cold storage (hence it costs them
virtually nothing) and are making an absolute killing as Defra field
officers.
Oz
>
>How many animals are we going to have to slaughter to eradicate the
>disease?
Unanswerable. It depends on how quick and effective you are at
eradicating. Our scots contingent thought the english didn't come down
hard and fast enough. They would appear to have a point.
>What are we going to do about the animal welfare problems caused by
>the movement bans?
This is a very serious problem indeed and one which governemnt seems to
be totally ignoring.
>How much is this going to cost the taxpayer?
Not an option. It's ec law.
>How long are we going to lose our oh-so-essential export markets for?
As long as we have a single vaccinated animal in the country or the
appropriate time after the last case.
>How likely is it that the disease will not be eradicated by the end of
>the summer?
Not looking good, I hope so.
>What happens in this case?
Panic. More likely a division of the country between northern england
(infected) and southern england (clear).
>In an uncertain world, it's always easy to find criticisms of a
>strategy you don't like.
I would LOVE to vaccinate if it eased the problem of eradication.
>We still haven't seen the worst-case scenarios, which include:
>A) we eradicate (eventually) only to have another outbreak in a year
>or 5.
That is up to government biosecurity.
>B) Someone else (USA?) has a major outbreak, and the developed world
>adopts vaccination (probably with improved vaccination/testing which
>is in the pipeline) thus rendering our precious disease-free status
>irrelevant.
Maybe. The foci were rapidly eradicated on the continent (and scotland)
so this isn't quite as likely as you suggest.
>C) we fail to eradicate indefinitely.
Serious damage, even more serious than the situation we find ourselves
in now.
>Readers with sufficiently long memories may recall I suggested these
>possibilities many months ago when vaccination was first being
>seriously debated. Who is going to bet against any of them happening
>now?
I have the feeling that the UK will now try and emulate the draconian
measures successfully used in scotland.
Oz
In passing the answers to the very basic questions posed by the NFU
never were remotely adequately answered.
They should be if they intend to use vaccination.
Oz
>not only that but the big hauliers negociated cheap rate diesel by massive
>bulk buying and it is easier for the big boys to justify the computerised
>tracking and management systems
A number of the big ones simply put extra tanks on and moved to france.
Saved road tax, got cheaper fuel and kept their business afloat.
Jill
>We still haven't seen the worst-case scenarios, which include:
>A) we eradicate (eventually) only to have another outbreak in a year
>or 5.
depends on whether to true cause ( and the other potential causes that have
been flagged up )of this one is isolated and whether full and appropriate
measures are taken to avoid another
>B) Someone else (USA?) has a major outbreak, and the developed world
>adopts vaccination (probably with improved vaccination/testing which
>is in the pipeline) thus rendering our precious disease-free status
>irrelevant.
Probably one of the better ideas if and only if and when and only when a
fully trialled and workeble in all practical situations vaccine is
developed - one that does protect all livestock from getting the disease not
just from spreading it. This does not exist yet - but I agree now that the
western world has had a serious outbreak I bet the various companies and
laboratories aare giving it a much higher priority
>C) we fail to eradicate indefinitely.
lets not go there please
Jill
http://www.poultryscotland.co.uk http://www.henhouses.co.uk
http://www.kintaline.co.uk http://www.hardyplantcentre.co.uk
http://homepages.tesco.net/~welshcottage
Dave Roberts
Annan <jd...@pol.ac.uk> writes
>> you cannot lose something you didn't have.
>
>I think this shows a breathtaking arrogance and narrow-mindedness.
I agree. There was a massive amount of support and sympathy extended to
the farming industry when the outbreak first occurred. None of it seems
to have been appreciated judging by the attitudes displayed here.
Pat Gardiner
"Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
>
> Pat Gardiner <Patga...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:9ncjrj$fnn$3...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk... > > > Which had no effect
> whatsoever except to alienate the farmers from the
> > > > government and the public. I suspect the full consequences of that
> shot
> > > > across the bows are still to come.
> > >
> > > price of fuel stopped rising
> > >
> > > haulage costs have fallen
> >
> > Haulage is an almost perfect market situation. Pure supply and demand.
>
> actually not. Remember you have to be ticketted for a lot of types of
loads
> which means that the smaller firm cannot afford the specialist training
and
> staff
I did say "almost"
OR goes over entirely to this sort of trade.
Specialists large and small take specialist training in order to be able to
compete in the market place and gain access to the better rates. So?
>Similarly in agriculture
> we have problems with vehicle access on some farms.
I have owned no less than three such farms or smallholdings in the last 10
years.
>It is virtually
> impossible for us to get access for artics because of the road, hence
there
> are a lot of firms that we cannot deal with.
As it is for me. So what? You are getting off the point. If you want to
argue there is a distortion in the market for white van deliveries, be my
guest. I was arguing road haulage. Merely because their are specialist
sectors dealing with specialist demands does not invalidate what I'm saying.
>
> >
> > Too much easy credit to the wrong people. A lot of employees decide to
> > strike out on their own. Borrow the money from the bank on the security
of
> > their home (Blame the bank for that - they are well-covered). Capacity
> > increases. Downturn in world trade, supply of work diminishes, rates
fall.
> > Marginal operators go out of business, lose their homes to repay the
bank.
> > Equilibrium returns.
> >
> > Haulage costs have nothing to do with it, over anything but the very
short
> > term. Rates are not determined by costs, but by supply and demand.
>
> see above. Also note that we have to survive in the short term for the
long
> term to be of interest
No dispute there. You need help and protection where appropriate,
>
> >
> > It is hard to persuade a small haulier of that. They see the bills
pouring
> > in. But the big boys get those same bills in exactly the same way - and
if
> > they over borrow before a downturn, they go the same way. Usually
however,
> > the collapse of the small hauliers reduces capacity before they hit the
> wall
>
> not only that but the big hauliers negociated cheap rate diesel by massive
> bulk buying and it is easier for the big boys to justify the computerised
> tracking and management systems
Both very marginal benefits, and in the real world more than compensated for
by the very small hauliers predilection for being creative with the
regulations.
One of the most disturbing characteristics of uba is that the politburo
follow the following pattern.
1. You insist that a new poster tells you their qualifications in order that
you may judge their credibility
2. They co-operate.
3. You take the p*** and in some cases call them a liar. ( Invariably after
not having taken the trouble to check first.)
4. Finally it sinks in that they are actually telling the truth and instead
of assuming they might actually have something worthwhile to contribute.
5. You spend your entire time telling them they do not know what they are
talking about. Despite the fact they are obviously better qualified IN THAT
PARTICULAR FIELD that you are.
I ran 10 "C" licence vehicles at the age of 17 almost unaided, certainly
unsupervised most of the time, thus acquiring what later became transport
managers' qualification. I founded a road haulage company in 1975, without
borrowing. This undertook general, container, TIR trailer and hazardous bulk
liquid haulage. I sold this business in 1988. I think there were about a
dozen own vehicles when I sold plus about the same number of owner-drivers ,
and until the last month or so (as part of the financing to buy me out -
there was no borrowing or HP) It is still running under the ownership of my
former junior partner and manager. I wrote and did some minor lecturing on
road haulage, domestic and international.
During the early part of this period, an office run by me was the largest
rail freight buyer in East Anglia (according to BR) and later companies run,
founded and chaired by me, were major buyers of road haulage. A much larger
haulage requirement that could be managed by a relatively small internal
haulage arm.
I was involved one way or another until retirement in 1992 - hence a little
rust - not senility.
I wouldn't dream of commenting on either veterinary clinical practice or of
farming practice...but there again I know my limitations. I'm not a member
of a shagged out industry, riddled with disease and crookery showing
tendencies to civil disobedience pending immanent extinction.
I had the sense to listen occasionally when someone was trying to help.
Now, I hope you do not take this personally, but as an industry - you aren't
one - as a business - you aren't one. You are not efficient, you are not
financial viable. You are part of way of life that is on the brink of total
extinction, an unnecessary extinction too.
You need friends not enemies. Nursemaids too. ;o)))
Pat Gardiner
Pat Gardiner
"Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
>
> Pat Gardiner <Patga...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:9ncjrk$fnn$4...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > from memory only, but I listened to him on the today programme and I'd
> go
> > > bail he actually said he had talked to farmers and their
representitives
> >
> > You may well be right. The point is that the victors write the history
> > books.
> > >
>
> exactly. So it didn't matter what Ben Gill did or didn't do, he would be
> fingered with the blame anyway. There he might as well do what he thinks
> right in the hope it works
We already know that it did not work. Not for the farmers, not for other
industries, not for the country. It is only a question now of whether it
gets much worse. He takes his share of the blame.
>
>
> > > except the cull seems to have worked. The flare up in Allendale seems
to
> > be
> > > because they didn't take infected sheep back arround case 1070 because
> of
> > > pressure from the NSA
> >
> > OK on some occasions it wasn't just the NFU but the NSA. During the CSF
> > outbreak it was the NPA making the running.
>
> from this point, taken separately from the previous bit, you can put in
> virtually any trade union or lobby group
No thanks, let's just stick to farming. I don't think the NUM had much to do
with BSE/CSF/FMD.
>
> The point is that all of these
> > people all had far too much to say for themselves. They were always on
the
> > fringe of the law and most of their efforts seemed to be directed to
> > protecting big business and their over-rated export trade.
>
> so effectively farmers are no different from the rest of the population,
> surprise, surprise
No, most of the population seem to get on remarkably well without causing
chaos on this scale. Four billion is it?
>
> >
> > The role of the NPA in the CSF outbreak needs very close examination
> indeed.
> > I'm an outsider don't forget. I accept that someone claiming to be a
> > farmer's representative is expected to be what he says he is.
> >
> > If not, you have to disown him.
>
> if too many farmers feel he is doing a bad job, he will go
Good, get on with it. If you don't you are implicated.
Pat Gardiner
PS As a point of information. Can you get rid of him? Several posts from
farmers seemed to suggest that the constitution of the NFU made it
impossible.
Pat Gardiner
"Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
>
> Pat Gardiner <Patga...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:9ncjri$fnn$2...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > no one listened to them before or we wouldn't be in this state to
start
> > off
> > > with. The NFU has pointed out for some time that we were importing
meat
> > from
> > > countries with endemic fmd and still are.
> >
> > I wish they had also pointed out that some of their bigger and more
> > influential members actually owned farms abroad as well as in the UK.
Some
> > of these farms were in areas where disease is endemic - and that disease
> > actually broke out on their farms.
>
> so what, you cannot import cattle, sheep or pigs into the UK without
> although it might in sheep. However who are these people illegally
importing
> livestock and how do they get them through the ports.
I'm quite sure that any such movements of live animals would be legal. The
reality is that illegal imports would be so unlikely as to be discountable.
I am not up-to-date with the quarantine regulations.
There are other routes of possible transmission , movement of personnel,
students, semen, samples etc. etc.
All legal - all risks. If it did come in this way, it is likely to be pigs
or porcine material.
>
> > > they also miss the blindingly obvious. There wasn't the vaccine
> available
> > > for all these retrospective schemes that have been suggested
> >
> > Then the government would not have been able to implement them, would
> they?
> > It is not the NFU's job to make those judgements. It is highly unlikely
> they
> > actually had the data anyway. MAFF only ever provides the data they want
> > out. If they want to hide something, there is no data.
> > >snip<
>
> the NFU made a judgement. The farmers on the ground don't trust the
> government. So the NFU came up with the 50 questions. Farmers read the
> answers, thanks in part to JM, and decided the government was wiggling
The NFU decided also to close the countryside. Bad judgement.
The NFU and others decided to blame infected meat imports. Bad judgement.
The NFU decided to put their exports above the countries interests. Bad
judgement.
Now, neither the government or the people trust the farmers. Bad judgement.
Strange, I was at a Grammar School in an industrial area too in the 1950's.
You used to have a good reputation. What did you do wrong?
You call your situation "Lucky" ?
Pat Gardiner
Linda Sutherland
from Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
> Panic. More likely a division of the country between northern england
> (infected) and southern england (clear).
???
There was an EU official (David Byrne?) on TV (possibly a regional
news bulletin) last week, interviewed about the possibility of
declaring Scotland clear even if the disease is still present in England.
My understanding of what he said is that boundaries on a map, not
corresponding to some physically isolating feature, would count for
very little in persuading the EC. Where there was physical isolation,
as in the case of the Scottish islands, it might - only might - be
easier to make a case.
--
Linda Sutherland
linda.su...@zetnet.co.uk
Jill
>In article <9nbcki$n3q$4...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, Jim Webster <jim@everyon
>e.knows.where.by.now> writes
>>what mistake. Thanks in a small part to Hanley and in a large part to a
lot
>>of wagon drivers, pensioners, farmers, taxi drivers and others the
>>government had a shot across its bows.
>
>Which had no effect whatsoever except to alienate the farmers from the
>government and the public
stopped fuel prices getting any higher which has benefited the whole economy
Jim Webster
> In article <35ac5ae8.01090...@posting.google.com>, James
> Annan <jd...@pol.ac.uk> writes
> >> you cannot lose something you didn't have.
> >
> >I think this shows a breathtaking arrogance and narrow-mindedness.
>
> I agree. There was a massive amount of support and sympathy extended to
> the farming industry when the outbreak first occurred. None of it seems
> to have been appreciated judging by the attitudes displayed here.
and this support was displayed how?
having seen the wave after wave of bigotry x posted to uba since february
the milk of human kindness is running pretty damned thin.
Jim Webster
>
> "Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
> news:9ncvu9$op4$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > Pat Gardiner <Patga...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > news:9ncjrk$fnn$4...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > > from memory only, but I listened to him on the today programme and
I'd
> > go
> > > > bail he actually said he had talked to farmers and their
> representitives
> > >
> > > You may well be right. The point is that the victors write the history
> > > books.
> > > >
> >
> > exactly. So it didn't matter what Ben Gill did or didn't do, he would be
> > fingered with the blame anyway. There he might as well do what he thinks
> > right in the hope it works
>
> We already know that it did not work. Not for the farmers, not for other
> industries, not for the country. It is only a question now of whether it
> gets much worse. He takes his share of the blame.
but that doesn't matter, he would have had the blame handed to him whatever
he said.
> >
> >
> > > > except the cull seems to have worked. The flare up in Allendale
seems
> to
> > > be
> > > > because they didn't take infected sheep back arround case 1070
because
> > of
> > > > pressure from the NSA
> > >
> > > OK on some occasions it wasn't just the NFU but the NSA. During the
CSF
> > > outbreak it was the NPA making the running.
> >
> > from this point, taken separately from the previous bit, you can put in
> > virtually any trade union or lobby group
>
> No thanks, let's just stick to farming. I don't think the NUM had much to
do
> with BSE/CSF/FMD.
straw man.
> >
> > The point is that all of these
> > > people all had far too much to say for themselves. They were always on
> the
> > > fringe of the law and most of their efforts seemed to be directed to
> > > protecting big business and their over-rated export trade.
> >
> > so effectively farmers are no different from the rest of the population,
> > surprise, surprise
>
> No, most of the population seem to get on remarkably well without causing
> chaos on this scale. Four billion is it?
which is virtually the same amount as the government saved in agricultural
expenditure over the last four years.
> >
> > >
> > > The role of the NPA in the CSF outbreak needs very close examination
> > indeed.
> > > I'm an outsider don't forget. I accept that someone claiming to be a
> > > farmer's representative is expected to be what he says he is.
> > >
> > > If not, you have to disown him.
> >
> > if too many farmers feel he is doing a bad job, he will go
>
> Good, get on with it. If you don't you are implicated.
balls
Look at the situation, we have James Annan telling us that farmers should
have ignored the government and its advisers and told people to keep coming
into the countryside. We have you telling us we should have listened to the
government and its advisers and accepted vaccination
same government, same advisers.
same no win situation, farmers will be wrong which ever way they jump. No
change there then.
> Pat Gardiner
>
> PS As a point of information. Can you get rid of him? Several posts from
> farmers seemed to suggest that the constitution of the NFU made it
> impossible.
it is pretty difficult to dispose of him instantly, same way as it is
difficult to dispose of a prime minister instantly. However if he alienates
farmers he will go.
Jim Webster
>
> "Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
> news:9ncvub$op4$2...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > Pat Gardiner <Patga...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > news:9ncjrj$fnn$3...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk... > > > Which had no effect
> > whatsoever except to alienate the farmers from the
> > > > > government and the public. I suspect the full consequences of that
> > shot
> > > > > across the bows are still to come.
> > > >
> > > > price of fuel stopped rising
> > > >
> > > > haulage costs have fallen
> > >
> > > Haulage is an almost perfect market situation. Pure supply and demand.
> >
> > actually not. Remember you have to be ticketted for a lot of types of
> loads
> > which means that the smaller firm cannot afford the specialist training
> and
> > staff
>
> I did say "almost"
>
> OR goes over entirely to this sort of trade.
not enough of it, agriculture declining market, small loads into out of the
way places, dislike toteliners, cannot take artics, not worth the candle
>
> Specialists large and small take specialist training in order to be able
to
> compete in the market place and gain access to the better rates. So?
see above
>
> >Similarly in agriculture
> > we have problems with vehicle access on some farms.
>
> I have owned no less than three such farms or smallholdings in the last 10
> years.
>
> >It is virtually
> > impossible for us to get access for artics because of the road, hence
> there
> > are a lot of firms that we cannot deal with.
>
> As it is for me. So what? You are getting off the point. If you want to
> argue there is a distortion in the market for white van deliveries, be my
> guest. I was arguing road haulage. Merely because their are specialist
> sectors dealing with specialist demands does not invalidate what I'm
saying.
if you can find a white van firm that makes 20 tonne deliveries then please
pass on their phone number,. White van firms are totally irrelevant to my
business. I have to deal with firms that are willing to do 15 tonne
deliveries. We deal with road haulage contractors
> >
> > >
> > > Too much easy credit to the wrong people. A lot of employees decide to
> > > strike out on their own. Borrow the money from the bank on the
security
> of
> > > their home (Blame the bank for that - they are well-covered).
Capacity
> > > increases. Downturn in world trade, supply of work diminishes, rates
> fall.
> > > Marginal operators go out of business, lose their homes to repay the
> bank.
> > > Equilibrium returns.
> > >
> > > Haulage costs have nothing to do with it, over anything but the very
> short
> > > term. Rates are not determined by costs, but by supply and demand.
> >
> > see above. Also note that we have to survive in the short term for the
> long
> > term to be of interest
>
> No dispute there. You need help and protection where appropriate,
yes, we need protecting from a government that was willing to sacrifice a
livestock industry just so it could have the general election in its chosen
month
> > >
> > > It is hard to persuade a small haulier of that. They see the bills
> pouring
> > > in. But the big boys get those same bills in exactly the same way -
and
> if
> > > they over borrow before a downturn, they go the same way. Usually
> however,
> > > the collapse of the small hauliers reduces capacity before they hit
the
> > wall
> >
> > not only that but the big hauliers negociated cheap rate diesel by
massive
> > bulk buying and it is easier for the big boys to justify the
computerised
> > tracking and management systems
>
> Both very marginal benefits, and in the real world more than compensated
for
> by the very small hauliers predilection for being creative with the
> regulations.
Ha,
not been in the business recently have you? Certainly round here even coal
merchants vans get pulled off the road and checked regularly
and are so bluidy expert that you expect me to move stuff by white van
firms!
pot kettle black
>
> During the early part of this period, an office run by me was the largest
> rail freight buyer in East Anglia (according to BR) and later companies
run,
> founded and chaired by me, were major buyers of road haulage. A much
larger
> haulage requirement that could be managed by a relatively small internal
> haulage arm.
>
> I was involved one way or another until retirement in 1992 - hence a
little
rust - not senility.
no obsolescence.
>
> I wouldn't dream of commenting on either veterinary clinical practice or
of
> farming practice...
yet you are telling us we should have vaccinated!
but there again I know my limitations. I'm not a member
> of a shagged out industry, riddled with disease and crookery showing
> tendencies to civil disobedience pending immanent extinction.
>
> I had the sense to listen occasionally when someone was trying to help.
>
> Now, I hope you do not take this personally, but as an industry - you
aren't
> one - as a business - you aren't one. You are not efficient, you are not
> financial viable. You are part of way of life that is on the brink of
total
> extinction, an unnecessary extinction too.
>
tell us something we didn't know twenty to thirty years ago
Jim Webster
right, so it came in from abroad. Have you finally accepted that.
> >
> > > > they also miss the blindingly obvious. There wasn't the vaccine
> > available
> > > > for all these retrospective schemes that have been suggested
> > >
> > > Then the government would not have been able to implement them, would
> > they?
> > > It is not the NFU's job to make those judgements. It is highly
unlikely
> > they
> > > actually had the data anyway. MAFF only ever provides the data they
want
> > > out. If they want to hide something, there is no data.
> > > >snip<
> >
> > the NFU made a judgement. The farmers on the ground don't trust the
> > government. So the NFU came up with the 50 questions. Farmers read the
> > answers, thanks in part to JM, and decided the government was wiggling
>
> The NFU decided also to close the countryside. Bad judgement.
no, the NFU did what the government and its advisers suggested. This is the
stance you want them to adopt, supine acceptence of any crap the government
wants to feed them.
> The NFU and others decided to blame infected meat imports. Bad judgement.
you yourself have just said it came in from abroad.
You yourself have said that casual walkers etc are unlikely to carry it so
we should not have shut the countryside
it has been pointed out in the faq that it is difficult to transmit it via
breath because they have tried it in tests
You have said that illegal importation of livestock is unlikely
so what did carry it in.,
so how did it come in then
> The NFU decided to put their exports above the countries interests. Bad
> judgement.
how, is this by not blocking the government when they shut footpaths or
blocking the government when it wanted vaccination
>
> Now, neither the government or the people trust the farmers. Bad
judgement.
at least we have a situation where we understand each other
????
yes, we could have had vaccination as well
Dave Roberts
<Patga...@btinternet.com> writes
>I'm not a member
>of a shagged out industry, riddled with disease and crookery showing
>tendencies to civil disobedience pending immanent extinction.
>
>I had the sense to listen occasionally when someone was trying to help.
see above
>
>Now, I hope you do not take this personally, but as an industry - you aren't
>one - as a business - you aren't one. You are not efficient, you are not
>financial viable. You are part of way of life that is on the brink of total
>extinction, an unnecessary extinction too.
Not sure about unnecessary, a ludicrous export business which existed on
public subsidy and contributed less than 1 per cent to our GDP could not
go on indefinitely.
>
>You need friends not enemies.
I fear this will be totally beyond their comprehension.
Just look at the attitude displayed here to walkers and this is a group
that supported them with complete co-operation when asked.
Dave Roberts
.knows.where.by.now> writes
>yes, we need protecting from a government that was willing to sacrifice a
>livestock industry just so it could have the general election in its chosen
>month
I feel I need protecting from a livestock industry that thinks itself
more important than general elections.
Dave Roberts
.knows.where.by.now> writes
>and this support was displayed how?
By being more than willing to cease walking in rural areas, for heavens
sake have you forgotten already ?
Oz
>
>I agree. There was a massive amount of support and sympathy extended to
>the farming industry when the outbreak first occurred. None of it seems
>to have been appreciated judging by the attitudes displayed here.
Oh yes it was and is appreciated.
However if someone comes into this group spouting inaccurate nonsense
that he cannot justify then this does not mean that because he claims to
be a member of the public that we all agree with him.
Would you expect otherwise?
Oz
>There was an EU official (David Byrne?) on TV (possibly a regional
>news bulletin) last week, interviewed about the possibility of
>declaring Scotland clear even if the disease is still present in England.
>
>My understanding of what he said is that boundaries on a map, not
>corresponding to some physically isolating feature, would count for
>very little in persuading the EC. Where there was physical isolation,
>as in the case of the Scottish islands, it might - only might - be
>easier to make a case.
Holland managed it, with a will the UK could.
Oz
>
>I feel I need protecting from a livestock industry that thinks itself
>more important than general elections.
:-)
Good job it wasn't bubonic plague though.
Steve Rawlings
+0100<9ncjri$fnn$2...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>
> They did not put a shot across anyones bows. They just took the good
> name of small farmers and dragged it through the mud.
Ahh, it's those "small farmers" again! My definition of a small farmer for
the past 20 years has always been "about 50 acs more than one is farming
at present"! What is yours?
As for farmers name being dragged in the mud, for all of my livfe on the
land, some 30 years now, farmers have always been pilloried. Nothing new
about this either, it goes back centuries.
For a few years, farming had a good press when the country was at war,
however, there were many people who were then moaning that farmers were
featherbedded and lived a life of luxury, "all that free food" etc.
However, like many, I spit at the mention of Hanley...
Steve Rawlings
www.dexterbeef.co.uk
Pat Gardiner
"Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
Part loads off the beaten track are more expensive, obviously, especially
when you have restricted access. That has always been true.
>
> >
> > Specialists large and small take specialist training in order to be able
> to
> > compete in the market place and gain access to the better rates. So?
>
> see above
>
> >
> > >Similarly in agriculture
> > > we have problems with vehicle access on some farms.
> >
> > I have owned no less than three such farms or smallholdings in the last
10
> > years.
> >
> > >It is virtually
> > > impossible for us to get access for artics because of the road, hence
> > there
> > > are a lot of firms that we cannot deal with.
> >
> > As it is for me. So what? You are getting off the point. If you want to
> > argue there is a distortion in the market for white van deliveries, be
my
> > guest. I was arguing road haulage. Merely because their are specialist
> > sectors dealing with specialist demands does not invalidate what I'm
> saying.
>
> if you can find a white van firm that makes 20 tonne deliveries then
please
> pass on their phone number,. White van firms are totally irrelevant to my
> business. I have to deal with firms that are willing to do 15 tonne
> deliveries. We deal with road haulage contractors
Now, I am confused. You talk about small loads above, now we are talking 20
tonne loads, then we go back to 15 tonne loads on rigids.
No wonder the hauliers avoid you. They are probably as confused as I am.
What actually is it that you want that you can't get done?
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Too much easy credit to the wrong people. A lot of employees decide
to
> > > > strike out on their own. Borrow the money from the bank on the
> security
> > of
> > > > their home (Blame the bank for that - they are well-covered).
> Capacity
> > > > increases. Downturn in world trade, supply of work diminishes, rates
> > fall.
> > > > Marginal operators go out of business, lose their homes to repay the
> > bank.
> > > > Equilibrium returns.
> > > >
> > > > Haulage costs have nothing to do with it, over anything but the very
> > short
> > > > term. Rates are not determined by costs, but by supply and demand.
> > >
> > > see above. Also note that we have to survive in the short term for the
> > long
> > > term to be of interest
> >
> > No dispute there. You need help and protection where appropriate,
>
>
> yes, we need protecting from a government that was willing to sacrifice a
> livestock industry just so it could have the general election in its
chosen
> month
Nobody is defending the government. I did not vote for them, but I don't
think they needed to be alienated. I'm afraid much of this fiasco was
agriculture misbehaving. Blair could not possibly tolerate Hanley and
Williams antics - no government could. Some had to in the past, but not when
Blair has an unassailable majority and the Tories are a shambles.
>
> > > >
> > > > It is hard to persuade a small haulier of that. They see the bills
> > pouring
> > > > in. But the big boys get those same bills in exactly the same way -
> and
> > if
> > > > they over borrow before a downturn, they go the same way. Usually
> > however,
> > > > the collapse of the small hauliers reduces capacity before they hit
> the
> > > wall
> > >
> > > not only that but the big hauliers negociated cheap rate diesel by
> massive
> > > bulk buying and it is easier for the big boys to justify the
> computerised
> > > tracking and management systems
> >
> > Both very marginal benefits, and in the real world more than compensated
> for
> > by the very small hauliers predilection for being creative with the
> > regulations.
>
> Ha,
>
> not been in the business recently have you? Certainly round here even coal
> merchants vans get pulled off the road and checked regularly
Come on, Jim, I'm not even retirement age. I don't live in an Ivory Tower
and know a dozen ways of defeating the tacho.
When times get tough the small hauliers will take flyers that the bigger
firms dare not contemplate.
>
>snip fascinating bio<
>
> and are so bluidy expert that you expect me to move stuff by white van
> firms!
>
>
> pot kettle black
You perfectly well knew I was pulling your leg when you talked about
specialists being outside a more or less "pure supply and demand." I expect
white vans are working in accordance with a near perfect market anyway.
>
>snip<
> > I was involved one way or another until retirement in 1992 - hence a
> little
> rust - not senility.
>
> no obsolescence.
Nonsense, basics never change.
>
> >
> > I wouldn't dream of commenting on either veterinary clinical practice or
> of
> > farming practice...
>
> yet you are telling us we should have vaccinated!
Naughty, naughty. I have never said anything of the kind - and you know
that. I've said many times that my natural inclination was to culling, but
did not have the expertise to judge.
I'm saying that Gill made you a hostage to fortune, when he and others went
so strongly against vaccination. It was also the way the veto was exercised.
>
>
.snip<
. You are part of way of life that is on the brink of
> total
> > extinction, an unnecessary extinction too.
> >
> tell us something we didn't know twenty to thirty years ago
You are a businessman; if you knew that why are you still there. The truth
is that you are not a businessman. You are a farmer.
Anyway, I don't think it was like that then and need not be like it now.
You are making it happen by allowing your own side to shoot you in the foot.
There is a brilliant future for small independent farming/smallholding
units. Not by civil disobedience though.
Pat Gardiner
"Linda Sutherland" <linda.su...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:200109081...@zetnet.co.uk...
Whatever we may feel about it here, there will be no co-operation from the
EU countries
They will speak softly, commiserate and say no - month after month after
month.
They are petrified of importing disease again from us.
They see no commercial advantage in allowing Britain to export again.
But, once we accept that this is going to be the situation, there are many
constructive things we can do.
It is important not to allow false hopes, that will delay more constructive
moves in other directions.
Pat Gardiner
>
> --
> Linda Sutherland
> linda.su...@zetnet.co.uk
>
>
Pat Gardiner
"Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
Yes, but people with his power have to act responsibly. He did not. He
pandered to the predudices of his electorate and thereby lost credibility
when things went wrong. The point being that farmers are now effectively
unrepresented.
I'm sorry I don't get the point. The simple fact is that this chaos has cost
the texpayer 4 billion that it would not otherwise have had to pay. Gordon
Brown is going to have the perfect excuse for every cut. Had the farmers
representatives behaved more sensibly and with just a little more humility,
they would have been seen as victims of a natural catastrophie.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The role of the NPA in the CSF outbreak needs very close examination
> > > indeed.
> > > > I'm an outsider don't forget. I accept that someone claiming to be a
> > > > farmer's representative is expected to be what he says he is.
> > > >
> > > > If not, you have to disown him.
> > >
> > > if too many farmers feel he is doing a bad job, he will go
> >
> > Good, get on with it. If you don't you are implicated.
>
> balls
Well you either support him and share whatever blame the government is
determined to pin on him or he goes.
>
> Look at the situation, we have James Annan telling us that farmers should
> have ignored the government and its advisers and told people to keep
coming
> into the countryside. We have you telling us we should have listened to
the
> government and its advisers and accepted vaccination
>
> same government, same advisers.
No, I'm saying that the farmers represententives should have been much less
vocal, certainly in public over the measures needing to be taken. They do
not have the expertise. They took effective control. If you do that you
carry the can.
>
> same no win situation, farmers will be wrong which ever way they jump. No
> change there then.
I don't think so. Just a lot more common sense. There was really no need to
"shut the countryside down" and I don't think anyone would have thought of
doing so, but for Gill's hystirical reaction.
Vaccination the same. It could have been considered more coldly. There is no
doubt that besides the lunatic and ignorant fringes, you do have some of the
world's top scientists backing the idea in its different forms. Plum Island
Brown is not just a leading authority - he leads US opinion. Of course,
people were worried about their flocks and herds, Gill should have
excercised a calming influence.
>
> > Pat Gardiner
> >
> > PS As a point of information. Can you get rid of him? Several posts from
> > farmers seemed to suggest that the constitution of the NFU made it
> > impossible.
>
> it is pretty difficult to dispose of him instantly, same way as it is
> difficult to dispose of a prime minister instantly. However if he
alienates
> farmers he will go.
>
Where has the sense of responsibility that made our leaders resign gone to?
Pat Gardiner
Jim Webster
> >
> Just look at the attitude displayed here to walkers and this is a group
> that supported them with complete co-operation when asked.
and deluged us with whinging x posts saying how you never saw a poor farmer
and the whole industry should be shut down
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
>
Jim Webster
> In article <9ndc08$v4$5...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, Jim Webster <jim@everyone
> .knows.where.by.now> writes
> >yes, we need protecting from a government that was willing to sacrifice a
> >livestock industry just so it could have the general election in its
chosen
> >month
> Incredible, this is the most pompous statement yet.
I suggest you look up pompous in a dictionary
>
> I feel I need protecting from a livestock industry that thinks itself
> more important than general elections.
when he had a whole year left to go of his term?
get a life
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
> Regards
Jim Webster
> >
> > not enough of it, agriculture declining market, small loads into out of
> the
> > way places, dislike toteliners, cannot take artics, not worth the candle
>
> Part loads off the beaten track are more expensive, obviously, especially
> when you have restricted access. That has always been true.
who's talking about part loads, we are talking full 15 tonne loads. They are
not part loads in that a 20 tonne artic couldn't get there
yes, in agriculture 10 to 15 tonne of a bulk commodity is a small load
>
> No wonder the hauliers avoid you. They are probably as confused as I am.
no, you are just displaying your ignorance of basic agricultural haulage
> What actually is it that you want that you can't get done?
you can get anything done at a price.
you want us to bend over and be shafted by them.
I did not vote for them, but I don't
> think they needed to be alienated. I'm afraid much of this fiasco was
> agriculture misbehaving. Blair could not possibly tolerate Hanley and
> Williams antics - no government could. Some had to in the past, but not
when
> Blair has an unassailable majority and the Tories are a shambles.
fuel price came down
lucky you. Except that round here trading standards will watch lorries set
off in a morning and measure their day. Not a lot you can do about that.
>
> When times get tough the small hauliers will take flyers that the bigger
> firms dare not contemplate.
> >
> >snip fascinating bio<
> >
> > and are so bluidy expert that you expect me to move stuff by white van
> > firms!
> >
> >
> > pot kettle black
>
> You perfectly well knew I was pulling your leg when you talked about
> specialists being outside a more or less "pure supply and demand." I
expect
> white vans are working in accordance with a near perfect market anyway.
> >
> >snip<
>
> > > I was involved one way or another until retirement in 1992 - hence a
> > little
> > rust - not senility.
> >
> > no obsolescence.
>
> Nonsense, basics never change.
try and get ticketted to carry ammonium nitrate
> >
> > >
> > > I wouldn't dream of commenting on either veterinary clinical practice
or
> > of
> > > farming practice...
> >
> > yet you are telling us we should have vaccinated!
>
> Naughty, naughty. I have never said anything of the kind - and you know
> that. I've said many times that my natural inclination was to culling, but
> did not have the expertise to judge.
>
> I'm saying that Gill made you a hostage to fortune, when he and others
went
> so strongly against vaccination. It was also the way the veto was
exercised.
what veto, He just told them his members didn't trust the government or
vaccination. Where was the veto. What the hell power do you think he has?
> >
> .snip<
>
> . You are part of way of life that is on the brink of
> > total
> > > extinction, an unnecessary extinction too.
> > >
> > tell us something we didn't know twenty to thirty years ago
>
> You are a businessman; if you knew that why are you still there. The truth
> is that you are not a businessman. You are a farmer.
I can hang on for another twenty years, Clare can have it for pony paddocks
after my time. I'll keep bringing in the money with writing and doing bits
of this and that.
>
> Anyway, I don't think it was like that then and need not be like it now.
> You are making it happen by allowing your own side to shoot you in the
foot.
sorry but it has been obvious for years. Back in 1967 father made a living
out of 17 cows. In 1974 he said to me "we'll have 30, keep both of us". We
gave up because 60 was no longer viable, now those staying in are saying
that 100 is the minimum necessary for survival. Same with any other
commodity you care to name.
writing has been on the wall since the 1970s.
> There is a brilliant future for small independent farming/smallholding
> units. Not by civil disobedience though.
and not by supporting themselves through agriculture. Not if you want to
send children to school in the same clothes as the children of non-farmers
Jim Webster
> In article <9ndc0b$v4$7...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, Jim Webster <jim@everyone
> .knows.where.by.now> writes
> >and this support was displayed how?
>
> By being more than willing to cease walking in rural areas, for heavens
> sake have you forgotten already ?
>
no, I just remember the endless x posted threads whining about it and saying
that agriculture should be shut down to save tourism
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
> Regards
Jim Webster
> > >
> > > We already know that it did not work. Not for the farmers, not for
other
> > > industries, not for the country. It is only a question now of whether
it
> > > gets much worse. He takes his share of the blame.
> >
> > but that doesn't matter, he would have had the blame handed to him
> whatever
> > he said.
>
> Yes, but people with his power have to act responsibly.
what power? If he gave an order who would obey? He has NO repeat NO power
and damned all influence.
> > > No, most of the population seem to get on remarkably well without
> causing
> > > chaos on this scale. Four billion is it?
> >
> > which is virtually the same amount as the government saved in
agricultural
> > expenditure over the last four years.
>
> I'm sorry I don't get the point. The simple fact is that this chaos has
cost
> the texpayer 4 billion that it would not otherwise have had to pay. Gordon
> Brown is going to have the perfect excuse for every cut.
he has already made the cut, expenditure on agriculture is now nearly 30%
less than it was back in 1996
Had the farmers
> representatives behaved more sensibly and with just a little more
humility,
> they would have been seen as victims of a natural catastrophie.
except the cut happened before the catastrophy
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The role of the NPA in the CSF outbreak needs very close
examination
> > > > indeed.
> > > > > I'm an outsider don't forget. I accept that someone claiming to be
a
> > > > > farmer's representative is expected to be what he says he is.
> > > > >
> > > > > If not, you have to disown him.
> > > >
> > > > if too many farmers feel he is doing a bad job, he will go
> > >
> > > Good, get on with it. If you don't you are implicated.
> >
> > balls
>
> Well you either support him and share whatever blame the government is
> determined to pin on him or he goes.
ah, you mean throw him to the wolves as a scape goat
> >
> > Look at the situation, we have James Annan telling us that farmers
should
> > have ignored the government and its advisers and told people to keep
> coming
> > into the countryside. We have you telling us we should have listened to
> the
> > government and its advisers and accepted vaccination
> >
> > same government, same advisers.
>
> No, I'm saying that the farmers represententives should have been much
less
> vocal, certainly in public over the measures needing to be taken. They do
> not have the expertise. They took effective control. If you do that you
> carry the can.
you cannot believe that. Farmers advisors took effective control!
for gods sake get real. All Ben Gill did was point out that farmers didn't
trust the government and the supermarkets to run vaccination properly and
therefore he couldn't guarentee that they would all co-operate and you
describe this as "they took effective control"
> >
> > same no win situation, farmers will be wrong which ever way they jump.
No
> > change there then.
>
> I don't think so. Just a lot more common sense. There was really no need
to
> "shut the countryside down" and I don't think anyone would have thought of
> doing so, but for Gill's hystirical reaction.
I'm sorry but the government and its advisers said there was and as a humble
farmer you insist I and my union do just what the government and its
advisers tell me too.
> Vaccination the same. It could have been considered more coldly. There is
no
> doubt that besides the lunatic and ignorant fringes, you do have some of
the
> world's top scientists backing the idea in its different forms. Plum
Island
> Brown is not just a leading authority - he leads US opinion.
knows sod all about hill sheep thought
Of course,
> people were worried about their flocks and herds, Gill should have
> excercised a calming influence.
ah, now you want him to lie to us
> >
> > > Pat Gardiner
> > >
> > > PS As a point of information. Can you get rid of him? Several posts
from
> > > farmers seemed to suggest that the constitution of the NFU made it
> > > impossible.
> >
> > it is pretty difficult to dispose of him instantly, same way as it is
> > difficult to dispose of a prime minister instantly. However if he
> alienates
> > farmers he will go.
> >
> Where has the sense of responsibility that made our leaders resign gone
to?
for politicians too many snouts in too rich a trough,
AJH
<j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote:
>
>who's talking about part loads, we are talking full 15 tonne loads. They are
>not part loads in that a 20 tonne artic couldn't get there
Not even those new ones with steering back axles? 29 tonnes seems to
be the payload on the flats I last loaded!
<big snip>
>sorry but it has been obvious for years. Back in 1967 father made a living
>out of 17 cows. In 1974 he said to me "we'll have 30, keep both of us".
1974 was they year I helped out milking 34 cows (herd leader was a
guernsey called "daisy" I can still remember one quarter bursting due
to severe mastitis, how little I knew of hygiene or compassion :-(),
last week I was back on the farm, removing a broadleaved woodland to
create an all weather hockey pitch, Tom the farmer is dead some while
back, yet although he seemed big, authoritarian and old he was
apparently only 10 years older than me :-(, I guess he roared out his
soul as I only remember him bellowing out abuse. The farm houses a
roofing business and this outlying farm is now a sports complex, the
home farm still appears to make big bale silage for what looked like
dairy animals.
AJH
Dave Roberts
e.knows.where.by.now> writes
>
>Dave Roberts <da...@studio-33.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:8Y8jVJAY...@smartproof.fsnet.co.uk
>> >
>
>> Just look at the attitude displayed here to walkers and this is a group
>> that supported them with complete co-operation when asked.
>
>and deluged us with whinging x posts saying how you never saw a poor farmer
>and the whole industry should be shut down
When it was thrown back in their face after it became clear the
countryside was not going to re-opened despite government advice.
Oz
>sorry but it has been obvious for years. Back in 1967 father made a living
>out of 17 cows. In 1974 he said to me "we'll have 30, keep both of us". We
>gave up because 60 was no longer viable, now those staying in are saying
>that 100 is the minimum necessary for survival. Same with any other
>commodity you care to name.
>writing has been on the wall since the 1970s.
I am afraid 200 is now at the point of non-viability.
We are into 600 cows where nobody know the cows and it's a morning
milker, and evening milker and someone to do the youngstock with a
manager over. Oh, and a couple of reliefs.
Oz
>When it was thrown back in their face after it became clear the
>countryside was not going to re-opened despite government advice.
Interesting. This is the sort of comment that gets a response because
certainly in my area all the footpaths are open and have been for many
months. I was under the impression the highlands were open too, and most
if not all of the west country.
Can you tell me where they are illegally closed?
Jim Webster
AJH <andrew...@dtn.ntl.com> wrote in message
news:sm5lpt4j8ltgk52c0...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 8 Sep 2001 19:12:23 +0100, "Jim Webster"
> <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote:
>
> >
> >who's talking about part loads, we are talking full 15 tonne loads. They
are
> >not part loads in that a 20 tonne artic couldn't get there
> Not even those new ones with steering back axles? 29 tonnes seems to
> be the payload on the flats I last loaded!
never come across one of them down here, indeed the cost may make them a bit
pricey for the lads round here. The problem is the narrowness of the lanes
and the sharpness of the corners. I honestly don't know whether they would
take it or not
> <big snip>
> >sorry but it has been obvious for years. Back in 1967 father made a
living
> >out of 17 cows. In 1974 he said to me "we'll have 30, keep both of us".
>
> 1974 was they year I helped out milking 34 cows (herd leader was a
> guernsey called "daisy" I can still remember one quarter bursting due
> to severe mastitis, how little I knew of hygiene or compassion :-(),
> last week I was back on the farm, removing a broadleaved woodland to
> create an all weather hockey pitch, Tom the farmer is dead some while
> back, yet although he seemed big, authoritarian and old he was
> apparently only 10 years older than me :-(, I guess he roared out his
> soul as I only remember him bellowing out abuse. The farm houses a
> roofing business and this outlying farm is now a sports complex, the
> home farm still appears to make big bale silage for what looked like
> dairy animals.
last year we went back to a village in the Cotswolds we had last visited
eight years before. First time we had chatted to farmers on our evening walk
around the outskirts of the village and looked at cattle and sheep. Last
time it was virtually all pony paddocks.
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
> AJH
Jim Webster
> In article <9ndlc9$hor$3...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>, Jim Webster <jim@everyon
> e.knows.where.by.now> writes
> >
> >Dave Roberts <da...@studio-33.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:8Y8jVJAY...@smartproof.fsnet.co.uk
> >> >
> >
> >> Just look at the attitude displayed here to walkers and this is a group
> >> that supported them with complete co-operation when asked.
> >
> >and deluged us with whinging x posts saying how you never saw a poor
farmer
> >and the whole industry should be shut down
>
> When it was thrown back in their face after it became clear the
> countryside was not going to re-opened despite government advice.
it was the government that shut the country, it was the government than
opened it. Round here paths are being opened when they meet the parameters
set down by the government are met. If the government isn't happy with the
speed of this it should change the parameters
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
>
Dave Roberts
.knows.where.by.now> writes
>it was the government that shut the country, it was the government than
>opened it. Round here paths are being opened when they meet the parameters
>set down by the government are met. If the government isn't happy with the
>speed of this it should change the parameters
The government advised my local council to open all paths on 28th March.
It wasn't until the 28th of July that they were opened and then only by
government order.
This was in Lincolnshire which was free of FMD.
Unfortunately the council is not free of farmers who blatantly pursued
their own interests with no regard for anyone else.
Nothing new there then.......
Dave Roberts
<O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes
>Dave Roberts writes
>
>>When it was thrown back in their face after it became clear the
>>countryside was not going to re-opened despite government advice.
>
>Interesting. This is the sort of comment that gets a response because
>certainly in my area all the footpaths are open and have been for many
>months. I was under the impression the highlands were open too, and most
>if not all of the west country.
wasn't until the 28th of July that they were opened and then only by
government order.
This was in Lincolnshire which was free of FMD.
Regards
Steve Rawlings
+0100<GoXtpjA3...@smartproof.fsnet.co.uk>
> By being more than willing to cease walking in rural areas, for heavens
> sake have you forgotten already ?
Well, around here, it was much appreciated by every Farmer and stockowner
I know.
Steve Rawlings
www.dexterbeef.co.uk
David G. Bell
j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now "Jim Webster" wrote:
> Pat Gardiner <Patga...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:9ndjn9$60r$4...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > >
> > > not enough of it, agriculture declining market, small loads into out of
> > the
> > > way places, dislike toteliners, cannot take artics, not worth the candle
> >
> > Part loads off the beaten track are more expensive, obviously, especially
> > when you have restricted access. That has always been true.
>
> who's talking about part loads, we are talking full 15 tonne loads. They are
> not part loads in that a 20 tonne artic couldn't get there
It's not just encroaching old age which make the current generation of
grain lorries feel too bloody big. Any bigger, and we're going to have
problems just getting them into the farmyard, while loading can
sometimes need the lorry doing a 180-degree turn to fill the front end.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
If I were to go back to my schooldays, knowing what I know now, I would
pack cheese sandwiches for lunch.
Dave Roberts
Rawlings <sraw...@cix.compulink.co.uk> writes
>Dave Rober...@studio-33.co.ukSat, 8 Sep 2001 17:38:15
>+0100<GoXtpjA3...@smartproof.fsnet.co.uk>
>
>> By being more than willing to cease walking in rural areas, for heavens
>> sake have you forgotten already ?
>
>Well, around here, it was much appreciated by every Farmer and stockowner
>I know.
I'm pleased to hear it, unfortunately others in your industry seem
oblivious to it.
Jim Webster
> In article <9nf1nt$va6$4...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>, Jim Webster <jim@everyone
> .knows.where.by.now> writes
> >it was the government that shut the country, it was the government than
> >opened it. Round here paths are being opened when they meet the
parameters
> >set down by the government are met. If the government isn't happy with
the
> >speed of this it should change the parameters
>
> The government advised my local council to open all paths on 28th March.
> It wasn't until the 28th of July that they were opened and then only by
> government order.
>
> This was in Lincolnshire which was free of FMD.
>
> Unfortunately the council is not free of farmers who blatantly pursued
> their own interests with no regard for anyone else.
>
> Nothing new there then.......
so they were not elected but put on by standing for some sort of electoral
fraud?
if you don't like it, vote against them in the next election
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
>
Jim Webster
> In article <KUF$8wGzsv...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
> <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes
> >Dave Roberts writes
> >
> >>When it was thrown back in their face after it became clear the
> >>countryside was not going to re-opened despite government advice.
> >
> >Interesting. This is the sort of comment that gets a response because
> >certainly in my area all the footpaths are open and have been for many
> >months. I was under the impression the highlands were open too, and most
> >if not all of the west country.
> The government advised my local council to open paths on 28th March. It
> wasn't until the 28th of July that they were opened and then only by
> government order.
>
> This was in Lincolnshire which was free of FMD.
so the locally democratically elected council was bickering with the
democratically elected government. Normally one leaves these things to the
man on the spot to decide but given this countries mania for centralisation
that is no longer acceptable
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
>
Jim Webster
> In article <memo.20010909...@srawlings.compulink.co.uk>, Steve
> Rawlings <sraw...@cix.compulink.co.uk> writes
> >Dave Rober...@studio-33.co.ukSat, 8 Sep 2001 17:38:15
> >+0100<GoXtpjA3...@smartproof.fsnet.co.uk>
> >
> >> By being more than willing to cease walking in rural areas, for heavens
> >> sake have you forgotten already ?
> >
> >Well, around here, it was much appreciated by every Farmer and stockowner
> >I know.
>
> I'm pleased to hear it, unfortunately others in your industry seem
> oblivious to it.
>
no, it just gets on everyones thruppenies to have some clown coming along
and demand that we all be ostentatiously grateful. What do you want us to
do, tug our forelocks.
funny how no one ever does good by stealth any more, there is always a price
tag
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
Five Cats
<linda.su...@zetnet.co.uk> writes
>The message <nKVU7kAy...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
> from Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
>
>> Panic. More likely a division of the country between northern england
>> (infected) and southern england (clear).
>
>???
>
>There was an EU official (David Byrne?) on TV (possibly a regional
>news bulletin) last week, interviewed about the possibility of
>declaring Scotland clear even if the disease is still present in England.
>
>My understanding of what he said is that boundaries on a map, not
>corresponding to some physically isolating feature, would count for
>very little in persuading the EC. Where there was physical isolation,
>as in the case of the Scottish islands, it might - only might - be
>easier to make a case.
Possibly the central belt might - it's a good distance from the nearest
case and corresponds to a natural geological feature or two.
>
--
Five Cats
Five Cats
<Patga...@btinternet.com> writes
<snip>
>
>One of the most disturbing characteristics of uba is that the politburo
>follow the following pattern.
>
>1. You insist that a new poster tells you their qualifications in order that
>you may judge their credibility
I have never been asked my qualifications on this group. Most people
never have so far as I can tell.
<snip>
--
Five Cats
Five Cats
<da...@studio-33.co.uk> writes
>In article <9ndc0b$v4$7...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, Jim Webster <jim@everyone
>.knows.where.by.now> writes
>>and this support was displayed how?
>
>sake have you forgotten already ?
And by buying even more imported meat 'just in case'.
>
>Regards
>Dave
>
--
Five Cats
Dave Roberts
.knows.where.by.now> writes
>
>no, it just gets on everyones thruppenies to have some clown coming along
>and demand that we all be ostentatiously grateful. What do you want us to
>do, tug our forelocks.
I don't expect you to come out and be grateful or tug forelocks but I do
expect you to acknowledge the fact rather than claim that you have had
no support whatsoever.
Regards
dave
Dave Roberts
.knows.where.by.now> writes
>
>Dave Roberts <da...@studio-33.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:k+1FMnA$Gym7...@smartproof.fsnet.co.uk...
>> In article <9nf1nt$va6$4...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>, Jim Webster <jim@everyone
>> .knows.where.by.now> writes
>> >it was the government that shut the country, it was the government than
>> >opened it. Round here paths are being opened when they meet the
>parameters
>> >set down by the government are met. If the government isn't happy with
>the
>> >speed of this it should change the parameters
>>
>> The government advised my local council to open all paths on 28th March.
>> It wasn't until the 28th of July that they were opened and then only by
>> government order.
>>
>> This was in Lincolnshire which was free of FMD.
>>
>> Unfortunately the council is not free of farmers who blatantly pursued
>> their own interests with no regard for anyone else.
>>
>> Nothing new there then.......
>
>so they were not elected but put on by standing for some sort of electoral
>fraud?
>
>if you don't like it, vote against them in the next election
I did in the last and will do in the future.
There are an unhealthy number of farmers and landowners on the council.
Despite calls for them to abstain from voting on footpath issues due to
their self interest they stubbornly went ahead.
This is how walkers and the public were rewarded by farmers in this area
for their support.
I will not give mine so generously in the future.
Your loss.........
Dave Roberts
Jim Webster
How can there be an unhealthy number of farmers and landowners on the
council if they were democratically elected? You have already said there was
no electoral fraud.
>
> This is how walkers and the public were rewarded by farmers in this area
> for their support.
No, this is how the democratically elected council dealt with the matter.
Unless of course farmers in your area form a majority of the electorate?
> I will not give mine so generously in the future.
>
> Your loss.........
so you are now expecting me to bear the consequences of the electorate in
your area? The rational seems more than a little dubious
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
> Regards
Jim Webster
> In article <j4G90nBr...@nevis-view.demon.co.uk>, Five Cats
> <cats...@hotmail.com> writes
> >In article <9nd7cc$tk7$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, Pat Gardiner
> ><Patga...@btinternet.com> writes
> ><snip>
> >>
> >>One of the most disturbing characteristics of uba is that the politburo
> >>follow the following pattern.
> >>
> >>1. You insist that a new poster tells you their qualifications in order
that
> >>you may judge their credibility
> >
> >I have never been asked my qualifications on this group. Most people
> >never have so far as I can tell.
>
> I was.
go round telling people what to do, and funnily enough people tend to ask
"so what do you know about it"
damned silly human nature, don't the peasantry know they should just tug
their forelocks and get on with doing what they are told
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
>
Jim Webster
> In article <9nfakr$5po$5...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>, Jim Webster <jim@everyone
> .knows.where.by.now> writes
> >
> >no, it just gets on everyones thruppenies to have some clown coming along
> >and demand that we all be ostentatiously grateful. What do you want us to
> >do, tug our forelocks.
>
> I don't expect you to come out and be grateful or tug forelocks but I do
> expect you to acknowledge the fact rather than claim that you have had
> no support whatsoever.
sorry but where did I say that?
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
>
Oz
>In article <KUF$8wGzsv...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
><O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> writes
>>Dave Roberts writes
>>
>>>When it was thrown back in their face after it became clear the
>>>countryside was not going to re-opened despite government advice.
>>
>>Interesting. This is the sort of comment that gets a response because
>>certainly in my area all the footpaths are open and have been for many
>>months. I was under the impression the highlands were open too, and most
>>if not all of the west country.
>The government advised my local council to open paths on 28th March. It
>wasn't until the 28th of July that they were opened and then only by
>government order.
>
>This was in Lincolnshire which was free of FMD.
You can't blame farmers for local authority actions. Even in lincs
farmers are a tiny minority of voters.
Oz
>This was in Lincolnshire which was free of FMD.
>
>Unfortunately the council is not free of farmers who blatantly pursued
>their own interests with no regard for anyone else.
Don;t blame farmers for who your voters vote in.
Oz
>I have never been asked my qualifications on this group. Most people
>never have so far as I can tell.
Like most people yours are written all over your posts.
No need to ask.
Some have something else written all over and it's NOT what they
effectively claim to have.