WARNING PRO-HUNT EXTREMISTS DRAW UP 'HIT LIST' Urgent Request for assistance from victims.
Derek Chase
MANY UK ARAs ARE FORCED TO STEP UP SECURITY AS PRO-HUNT EXTREMISTS
DRAW UP 'HIT LIST'
Property, vehicles, communications and computers at risk
Pro-hunt extremists are drawing up a hit-list of anti hunt campaigners
in the event of a forthcoming ban, It can be revealed. It comes just
days after the alleged assault of anti hunt campaigners and police at
the recent parliamentary discussions in London.
Reliable sources within the pro-hunting movement have indicated the
intentions of some of their peers to actively publicise the names and
addresses of leading anti hunt campaigners on the internet, resulting
in fears of personal attack or damage to property.
Those fears have now been further fueled by an anonymous letter in
this month's underground countryman's magazine "Earth Dog - Running
Dog" - a copy of which has been obtained by certain sources. It urges
hunters to "choose targets directly connected with the anti-hunting
repressive apparatus" , it refers to property, vehicles,
communications and computer hacking.
The threats come shortly after Channel 4 News broadcast sinister
footage of Real Countryside Alliance activists attacking the property
of an anti-hunt campaigner. It showed masked activists daubing slogans
on the campaigners house and damage to a vehicle. And in a recent BBC
Newsnight investigation into the Real Countryside Alliance, anonymous
pro-hunt activists from Wales stated that "physical violence" was on
the agenda if hunting was banned.
Many campaigners have already been attacked and members of staff of
anti hunt groups have been assaulted and arson attacks . We cannot
afford not to take such threats seriously. As a result people are
stepping up security at premises in all areas. We hope this will deter
extremists from taking such foolhardy action and have also written to
the police asking that the strongest action be taken in the event of
such circumstances.
This directly involves people in these groups, after an innocent
victim was named, his address published and photographs of his house
daubed all over the net by Pro Hunt extremists, in a mistaken effort
to get at an AR advocate. Fortunately these premises were covered by
CCTV and the tapes are now in the hands of the police.
You are all advised to take particular note of strangers hanging
around in cars or on foot. If possible keep diaries, take photographs
and registration numbers, note descriptions. warn neighbours and
neighbourhood watch representatives. If there is anything suspicious,
or if in doubt, contact your local police IMMIEDIATELY.
Usually once these people are caught, investigations reveal other
participants.
Consider installing CCTV. BEWARE of suspicious mailings and packages
on the doorstep. ALWAYS ask to see ID.
The Police are taking these matters very seriously, and it outlines
the mentality of the people that would like to see animal abuse
continue unrestrained. There needs to be a few cogs loose to
participate in animal abuse, without doubt.
Dealing with the recent case of mistaken identity. The two main
parties to this offence are
Former employee of the Woodland Trust, who left stealing confidential
data. legal action in process.
David Bradbury aka Olwyn Mawr
49 Ramsey Drive
Parton
Whitehaven
Cumbria
CA28 6RE
crackhead...@trochos.freeserve.co.uk
aka goat shagger,gordian not,getravis and others. real name.
Michael Saunby,
Teachmore
Inwardleigh,
Okehampton, Devon
EX203AJ
Tel. 01837851263
Ilike...@chook.demon.co.uk
Mabbett, Andrew J
17, Weybourne Road, B44 9DD
Birmingham
01216031061
Andy Mabbett trollin...@pigsonthewing.org.uk
Who published a website with a malcolm Ogilvie, targeting other
innocent people against the killing of animals. Showing great detail
about the victims house and inviting violent actions.
also see.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3b2883e4.1874760%40news.eclipse.co.uk&rnum=1
(The activities of the two named individuals are public knowledge and
can be obtained from WWW.GOOGLE.CO.UK archives.
And at least six others, the identities to be revealed, one of which
is currently liaising with us. These people have made their intentions
against ARAs quite clear, and are actively participating in further
intimidation measures against ARs and others.
It is kindly requested that anyone having information in this matter,
and in particular related to the two above named individuals, please
contact us or the police. There is a one thousand pound reward on
offer to anyone who has been party to this conspiracy including the
recent death threats. Information will be treated in the strictest
confidence.
Contact initially should be made via email to the following address,
after which a visit will be made by legal representatives.
Or publish a newsgroup request for assistance with a subject line that
contains
[REQ} AR217654
You will be contacted shortly. Once again your anonymity is
guaranteed.
Kind Regards.
Derek Chase
Liaisons Officer.
ARs Liaison Office
High Holborn
London
WC1 6QA
(Apologies to uninterested parties on this group. Given the serious
nature I am sure you will understand the necessity to warn people)
remove crossposting please.
Thanks to those informing us the postcode was incorrect previously.
NewsFlash.
An address in Basildon targeted by the pro hunt terrorists was
yesterday attacked. Resulting in extensive property damage &
hospitalization of the innocent owners, who were mistakenly identified
by the ringleaders.
Former employee of the Woodland Trust, who left stealing confidential
data. legal action in process.
David Bradbury aka Olwyn Mawr
49 Ramsey Drive
Parton
Whitehaven
Cumbria
CA28 6RE
ol...@trochos.freeserve.co.uk
aka goat shagger,gordian not,getravis and others. real name.
Michael Saunby,
Teachmore
Inwardleigh,
Okehampton, Devon
EX203AJ
Tel. 01837851263
mi...@chook.demon.co.uk
http://www.tmac.clara.co.uk/urgring/urgmeet5.htm
Police, Insurance Company & serious crimes officers are currently
investigating.
It is imperative we get these people locked up ASAP before they kill
someone. Please keep the information coming..
Newsflash.
A number of suspicious packages destined for our offices have been
intercepted.
Hamish Macbeth
"Derek Chase" <ARliaso...@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4smg0vgjat9bcf0te...@4ax.com...
> Reliable sources within the pro-hunting movement have indicated the
> intentions of some of their peers to actively publicise the names and
> addresses of leading anti hunt campaigners on the internet, resulting
> in fears of personal attack or damage to property.
>
Only a total sociapath would publish private addresses, wouldn't they
pete?
Colin A Jacobs
every time.
CJ
--
http://welcome.to/l&tanglingcentre
for All your East Coast Bait & Tackle needs
"Hamish Macbeth" <Ham...@buddenbrooks.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:au9mrr$erm$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
Simon Gray
do us a favour and kill themselves, foxes need to be controlled for
the sake of our wildlife
REMEMBER ON BOXING DAY SHOOT THEM GREY SQUILRELS AS MANY AS YOU CAN,
AND SAVE OUR WOODLAND BIRDS.
UP WITH FOXHUNTING,
BRITISH WILDLIFE FIRST.
SHUT DOWN THE SOCIALIST ALLIANCE - SMASH THEM!
"Colin A Jacobs" <colina...@benacre.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:<au9nhh$rup$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Swukker
> I wish the frigging left-wing tosspots who put this crap on here would
> do us a favour and kill themselves, foxes need to be controlled for
> the sake of our wildlife
Firstly, despite Countryside Alliance propaganda to the contrary, this
is not primarily a left/right argument more a humanity/inhumanity
argument. Anne Widdecombe, one of the more prominaent Parliamnetary
anti-hunt campaigners could hardly be called a left-wing tosspot,
could she? Nor is it a town/country argument - I have been a country
dweller all my life and have never felt in a minority of one. The fact
that these people have to resort to such language just goes to show
the paucity of their argument.
Secondly, the ban on hunting during the recent foot & mouth outbreak
led to no appreciable difference in the fox population in areas where
they would have been hunted. Huntsmen themselves have said in the past
that they rarely catch a fox and do it mainly for the thrill of the
chase. So, to say a ban would put wildlife at any more risk than it is
at present is a nonsense. Are these people campaigning against the
poisoning of birds of prey either deliberately or by injudicious use
of pesticides? Are these people campaigning against the use of
nitrogenous fertilisers that destroy the wildlife in our lakes and
rivers?
No doubt we will soon have the pseudomystical arguments wheeled out
with the mysterious accusation that we antis do not understand country
ways. And, when all else has failed and a ban is introduced, we will
have the spectacle of farmers and their hangers-on indulging in mass
slaughter to try and make a point and bring about the extinction of
the fox population at the same time.
Jim Webster
Swukker <swu...@supaman.com> wrote in message
> No doubt we will soon have the pseudomystical arguments wheeled out
> with the mysterious accusation that we antis do not understand country
> ways. And, when all else has failed and a ban is introduced, we will
> have the spectacle of farmers and their hangers-on indulging in mass
> slaughter to try and make a point and bring about the extinction of
> the fox population at the same time.
yawn
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
Malky @ Westhill
> Here we go again another load of crap to blight a news group. Same old
Stuff
> every time.
> CJ
Snipped
So why did you NOT snip the original message prior to replying, and why
reply in the first case anyway, if you did not agree with the contents of
the afore said post ?
Malky @ Westhill.
Steve Ritchie
> Anne Widdecombe, one of the more *prominaent Parliamnetary*
To much of the old whisky at Christmas time, eh what ??
Those words are difficult enough to say even when they're spelt right.
Andy Mabbett
<swu...@supaman.com> writes
>No doubt we will soon have the pseudomystical arguments wheeled out
>with the mysterious accusation that we antis do not understand country
>ways.
I was intrigued by the huntswoman on the TV news yesterday, who said
that "the countryside should be left to county people, who will look
after it as we have dome, for hundreds of years".
Does she ask her country MP not to vote on urban matters? Can she tell
me why we've lost ~90% of our hedgerows since the war?
--
Andy Mabbett
"Most big corporate websites are still so arrogant that they refuse to
communicate to customers and answer their questions in plain language."
Jakob Nielsen
David B
Andy Mabbett <usenet...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote in message
news:1MAx7iQc...@pigsonthewing.org.uk...
> me why we've lost ~90% of our hedgerows since the war?
> --
> Andy Mabbett
90% ! Where do you get that figure from ?
The biggest figure I can find is 50% between the 40s and 1980. and remember
a big chunk of that had more to do with the needs of urban man than
agriculture.
The current situation is that since 1998 planning permision is needed to
remove hedges and that many new hedges are being planted and existing ones
gapped up on stewardship schemes. I`ve seen the number of km somewhere but
don`t have it to hand just now .
David B
David B
David B <da...@marleycotenospam.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:auibne$jsv$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
the rate of removal of hedges" and there are a third of a million miles of
hedges in the country.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/141842.stm
DB
Jim Webster
David B <da...@marleycotenospam.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:auibne$jsv$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
don't worry, no one ever let reality get in the way of a good rant. Andy
Mabbett is merely repeating one of those meaningless figures that
various 'spokespersons' parrot to the media when they get the chance to
fill a sound bite.
Nick Maclaren
David B <da...@marleycotenospam.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>David B <da...@marleycotenospam.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:auibne$jsv$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> Andy Mabbett <usenet...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote in message
>> news:1MAx7iQc...@pigsonthewing.org.uk...
>> > In message <ab2dce98.02122...@posting.google.com>, Swukker
>> > <swu...@supaman.com> writes
>> >
>> > Does she ask her country MP not to vote on urban matters? Can she tell
>> > me why we've lost ~90% of our hedgerows since the war?
>>
>>
>> The biggest figure I can find is 50% between the 40s and 1980. and
>remember
>> a big chunk of that had more to do with the needs of urban man than
>> agriculture.
>> The current situation is that since 1998 planning permision is needed to
>> remove hedges and that many new hedges are being planted and existing ones
>> gapped up on stewardship schemes. I`ve seen the number of km somewhere but
>> don`t have it to hand just now .
>> David B
>>
>Check out this link. You will find that "The rate of new planting exceeds
>the rate of removal of hedges" and there are a third of a million miles of
>hedges in the country.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/141842.stm
See Rackham on this :-(
A figure of 90% destruction is quite possibly correct, even if the
figure for removal is lower. A lot of hedges are now flailed annually
to a degree that removes any possibility of fruit (often even flower)
or bird habitat. The ploughing, weedkilling and mowing now often
extends right up to the hedge itself and often inside (unlike in
the 1950s), effectively eliminating them as a wildflower or mammal
refuge. And, of course, no new trees will grow up through the
flailing.
A lot of hedges have 2-3 times less surface area and 5-10 times less
volume than in the 1950s, and are probably even less good as wildlife
habitats. The newly planted hedges are particularly poor, of course,
even after the weed barrier has started to break down (which takes
decades). Not all hedges have suffered this badly, but you can see
square miles that have, especially in the east of the country.
However, Andy Mabbett is utterly and completely wrong that the hedge
destruction was due to the wishes of the 'landowners' - it was a
matter of government policy, and heavily subsidised, both directly
and indirectly. While there were good reasons to reduce the number
of hedges in the west, far more were removed in the east where there
was reason to preserve them. And the subsidies for removing them
lasted many years after the EU introduced subsidies for replanting
them.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computing Service,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England.
Email: nm...@cam.ac.uk
Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679
Andy Mabbett
<nm...@cus.cam.ac.uk> writes
>
>However, Andy Mabbett is utterly and completely wrong that the hedge
>destruction was due to the wishes of the 'landowners'
I didn't say that it was.
Tim Lamb
enospam.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>90% ! Where do you get that figure from ?
>
>The biggest figure I can find is 50% between the 40s and 1980. and remember
>a big chunk of that had more to do with the needs of urban man than
>agriculture.
A largely ignored item is that many old hedgerows, unmanaged during
W.W.II. are now *rows of trees* and not classified as hedges. Rackham
has an agenda and should be read with this in mind.
Simply criticising the impact of flail hedging rather begs the question
of who should fund any labour intensive alternative.
>The current situation is that since 1998 planning permision is needed to
>remove hedges and that many new hedges are being planted and existing ones
>gapped up on stewardship schemes. I`ve seen the number of km somewhere but
>don`t have it to hand just now .
Just so.
regards
>
>
--
Tim Lamb
swroot
> In article <auibne$jsv$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, David B <david@marleycot
> enospam.fsnet.co.uk> writes
> >90% ! Where do you get that figure from ?
> >
> >The biggest figure I can find is 50% between the 40s and 1980. and remember
> >a big chunk of that had more to do with the needs of urban man than
> >agriculture.
>
> A largely ignored item is that many old hedgerows, unmanaged during
> W.W.II. are now *rows of trees* and not classified as hedges. Rackham
> has an agenda and should be read with this in mind.
He is, however, technically correct. Hedgerows that have become rows of
trees since (not 'during', surely?) WWII are still 'lost' as far as the
wildlife of hedgerows is concerned.
>
> Simply criticising the impact of flail hedging rather begs the question
> of who should fund any labour intensive alternative.
FWIW, as far as I'm aware, flailing is not an unsuitable method for
managing a hedge. If done at the correct time of year, to the correct
shape, and on growth of the correct diameter/age, flailing is as
acceptable as any other means of trimming a hedge. In the long term
those spp best able to grow quickly in response to trimming may
outcompete others, but that would be true of any form of management
intended to maintain a tidy hedge year in, year out.
regards
sarah
--
Got to keep the wolf from my door
I think I know what he wants me for
I shook his hand and found a claw
I saw him smile, now I've seen his jaws ... _Show of Hands_
Jim Webster
Tim Lamb <t...@marford.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bNDm9HAR...@marford.demon.co.uk...
> In article <auibne$jsv$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, David B
<david@marleycot
> enospam.fsnet.co.uk> writes
> >90% ! Where do you get that figure from ?
> >
> >The biggest figure I can find is 50% between the 40s and 1980. and
remember
> >a big chunk of that had more to do with the needs of urban man than
> >agriculture.
>
> A largely ignored item is that many old hedgerows, unmanaged during
> W.W.II. are now *rows of trees* and not classified as hedges. Rackham
> has an agenda and should be read with this in mind.
There is a lot of problems with this sort of survey. I can remember
about 25 years ago we had two men round, paid by the forestry commission
to count trees. I remember the went along one hedge counting the trees,
which took them all day. In a 300yd length they must have got over 200.
If they had come back next spring they would have got none because that
winter we laid the dike and of course the "trees" were laid back in with
everything else.
>
> Simply criticising the impact of flail hedging rather begs the
question
> of who should fund any labour intensive alternative.
same old story, there are those who are willing to work and those who
are willing to let them.
Naturenet
bad thing. The problem is that it is very easy to flail badly, and you
need little skill to flail a hedge to within an inch of its life. It
only takes one bad flailing and the damage is done.
It's also not true (someone elses post) that you need 'planning
permission' to remove a hedge. You are referring to the Hedgerow
Regulations 1997, and trust me, they are not much protection for
anything. To find out what I think about that and to read some expert
commentries see http://www.naturenet.net/trees/hedgerow/index.html
Matthew Chatfield
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 12:18:12 +0000, swr...@farm-direct.co.uk (swroot)
said this:
Tim Lamb
<swr...@farm-direct.co.uk> writes
>Tim Lamb <t...@marford.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <auibne$jsv$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>, David B <david@marleycot
>> enospam.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>> >90% ! Where do you get that figure from ?
>> >
>> >The biggest figure I can find is 50% between the 40s and 1980. and remember
>> >a big chunk of that had more to do with the needs of urban man than
>> >agriculture.
>>
>> A largely ignored item is that many old hedgerows, unmanaged during
>> W.W.II. are now *rows of trees* and not classified as hedges. Rackham
>> has an agenda and should be read with this in mind.
>
>He is, however, technically correct. Hedgerows that have become rows of
>trees since (not 'during', surely?) WWII are still 'lost' as far as the
>wildlife of hedgerows is concerned.
True enough that Andy used the word *lost*, my criticism of his source
is that the usual context is related to the depredations of agriculture.
It would be nice to see environment interest groups avoiding the
selective emotive quote.
*During* is my personal view of when things started to go wrong. Any
farmer contemplating trimming a hedge having at least 5 years of
overgrowth with hand tools and the unskilled labour available in the
immediate post war years, would do what my father did; nail up some
barbed wire.
The *managed* hedges I have are either planted post '45 or have been
recovered from rows of trees by using a tractor mounted circular saw
(hedging). I have a short stretch of coppicing to do next time the field
is in set-aside and will try to date the growth.
regards
--
Tim Lamb
Carpetmonster
"David B" <da...@marleycotenospam.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:auibne$jsv$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> news:1MAx7iQc...@pigsonthewing.org.uk...
> > In message <ab2dce98.02122...@posting.google.com>, Swukker
> > <swu...@supaman.com> writes
> >
> > Does she ask her country MP not to vote on urban matters? Can she tell
> > me why we've lost ~90% of our hedgerows since the war?
> > --
> > Andy Mabbett
>
> 90% ! Where do you get that figure from ?
>
Remember 82.7% of statistics are made up on the spur of the moment in order
to make a point.
--
Read it again, more carefully; it may make more sense
Carpetmonster
Carl Reavey
>destruction was due to the wishes of the 'landowners' - it was a
>matter of government policy, and heavily subsidised,
Sorry, but no - Andy is at least partly right. To differentiate so
neatly between "landowners" and "government" is naive. The two are
inextricably enmeshed in a system of lobbying/backscratching that
traditionally defines the Tory party but latterly the entire political
system. Agricultural policy was created by government as a response to
lobbying from those who control the purse strings, ie the landowning
classes. "Subsides" were then, and remain now, a kickback that enable
the rich to remain rich and insulated from the reality of the market.
This is why the landowners, having been enthusiastic supporters of
government policies that gave them subsides to rip out the hedgerows,
are now enthusiastic supporters of new government policies that will
subsidise putting them back...
Have a nice day...
--
Carl Reavey
http://www.portcharlottehotel.co.uk
http://www.islaylamb.co.uk
Carl Reavey
>about 25 years ago we had two men round, paid by the forestry commission
>to count trees. I remember the went along one hedge counting the trees,
>which took them all day. In a 300yd length they must have got over 200.
>
I guess that's why the FC simply had to go. Imagine two men taking a
whole day to count 200 trees in 300 yards - and getting paid for it...
<smile>
Dear old Margaret - just think, 25 years ago people thought that was
acceptable...
And then, SHE arrived...
Yurk... MAN THE BARRICADES!! Rise up peasants or you will all end up
working for a living!!
Nightmare...
toot toot...
Terry Harper
>
> *During* is my personal view of when things started to go wrong. Any
> farmer contemplating trimming a hedge having at least 5 years of
> overgrowth with hand tools and the unskilled labour available in the
> immediate post war years, would do what my father did; nail up some
> barbed wire.
>
> The *managed* hedges I have are either planted post '45 or have been
> recovered from rows of trees by using a tractor mounted circular saw
> (hedging). I have a short stretch of coppicing to do next time the field
> is in set-aside and will try to date the growth.
One step taken round our way is the annual young farmers' hedge-laying
competition. This usually leaves a stretch of hedge which needs laying to
complete the field boundary. A hedge layer has just done a stretch down the
lane from us, which was a bit patchy to say the least, and now looks a
lovely job. It will need a few years to fill out properly, but a big
improvement on what was there before.
Not only that, but you can now see into the field, which often has
low-flying swallows in the summer, getting the flies feeding on the sheep
droppings, I suspect.
--
Terry Harper
http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/
Jim Webster
Carl Reavey <ca...@portcharlotte.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:yuziKNAu...@portcharlotte.demon.co.uk...
> >However, Andy Mabbett is utterly and completely wrong that the hedge
> >destruction was due to the wishes of the 'landowners' - it was a
> >matter of government policy, and heavily subsidised,
>
>
> Sorry, but no - Andy is at least partly right. To differentiate so
> neatly between "landowners" and "government" is naive. The two are
> inextricably enmeshed in a system of lobbying/backscratching that
> traditionally defines the Tory party but latterly the entire political
> system. Agricultural policy was created by government as a response
to
> lobbying from those who control the purse strings, ie the landowning
> classes. "Subsides" were then, and remain now, a kickback that enable
> the rich to remain rich and insulated from the reality of the market.
total rubbish. It has nothing to do with tory, labour or anything UK.
The problem is simply that the EU defined the maximum width of a hedge,
any wider and you got money deducted from your arable aid payments.
Jim Webster
> >. I can remember
> >about 25 years ago we had two men round, paid by the forestry
commission
> >to count trees. I remember the went along one hedge counting the
trees,
> >which took them all day. In a 300yd length they must have got over
200.
> >
>
>
> I guess that's why the FC simply had to go. Imagine two men taking a
> whole day to count 200 trees in 300 yards - and getting paid for it...
>
> <smile>
>
> Dear old Margaret - just think, 25 years ago people thought that was
> acceptable...
>
> And then, SHE arrived...
>
> Yurk... MAN THE BARRICADES!! Rise up peasants or you will all end up
> working for a living!!
farmers are guaranteed a living because we are vital. We produce so
many statistics and fill in so many forms providing so much data, that
without us millions of vital civil servants would have nothing to do.
Hence we are essential.
Paul Rooney
Even if true, this would not be relevant, since UK farmers did most of
their hedge-vandalism in the days before we joined the EEC.
--
Paul
Jim Webster
Paul Rooney <paulr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:p39t0v0jj70cljpf8...@4ax.com...
so most hedges were removed prior to 1972?
So why are you blaming and attacking those currently in the industry for
what was done by their parents? Are we going to shoot all modern
architects because of the tower blocks built in the 60s?
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
>
> --
> Paul
Oz
>This is why the landowners, having been enthusiastic supporters of
>government policies that gave them subsides to rip out the hedgerows,
>are now enthusiastic supporters of new government policies that will
>subsidise putting them back...
Eh?
Actually it was a desperate need for the UK to provide much more of it's
own food. The cost of buying food was a terrible drain on our already
depleted foreign exchange after the war. That's why rationing went on
for so long (and restrictions on foreign exchange), the country could
not afford to pay for it. Remember world food prices were 10-20 times
higher in real terms than they are today, and we imported some huge
percentage (was it 70%?) of our consumption.
So up until some time in the 60's or 70's there were government grants
to try and increase UK food production after some 60+ years when it had
been trashed. The small, low output, low profit, dog and stick farming
that remained was completely incapable of self-funding the required
infrastructure, hence the need for grants.
It worked very well, food prices have risen far more slowly than incomes
for the last 40 years. Currently farmgate food prices are lower than
they have been for 30+ years in real terms, and lower in actual terms
than 30 years in many commodities. Just to put things in perspective I
earned 25 pounds a week as a theatre porter (hospital) in 1971, and
wheat was 72/T in 1976 whilst today it's 55/T. I doubt a theatre porter
in central london earns less that 250/week today.
--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.
Tim Lamb
<Terry....@btinternet.com> writes
>> The *managed* hedges I have are either planted post '45 or have been
>> recovered from rows of trees by using a tractor mounted circular saw
>> (hedging). I have a short stretch of coppicing to do next time the field
>> is in set-aside and will try to date the growth.
>
>One step taken round our way is the annual young farmers' hedge-laying
>competition. This usually leaves a stretch of hedge which needs laying to
>complete the field boundary. A hedge layer has just done a stretch down the
>lane from us, which was a bit patchy to say the least, and now looks a
>lovely job. It will need a few years to fill out properly, but a big
>improvement on what was there before.
There is a down side to laid hedges; flail hedgers working *up the
grain* tend to eat entire branches.
As Sarah has said, flail is convenient and tidy. From a field management
POV it works very well. The problems start when you try to maximise
opportunities for wildlife.
regards
--
Tim Lamb
Carl Reavey
<j...@freeserve.spam.co.uk> writes
Er - you wouldn't happen to be a farmer would you?
<grin>
Carl
Jim Webster
So what, I also happen to be a person who has to deal with EU paperwork
Jim Webster
> As Sarah has said, flail is convenient and tidy. From a field
management
> POV it works very well. The problems start when you try to maximise
> opportunities for wildlife.
exactly, people get most upset when you start using explosives on the
suburbs to clear them away.
Paul Rooney
<j...@freeserve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
>market.
>> >
>> >total rubbish. It has nothing to do with tory, labour or anything UK.
>> >The problem is simply that the EU defined the maximum width of a
>hedge,
>> >any wider and you got money deducted from your arable aid payments.
>>
>> Even if true, this would not be relevant, since UK farmers did most of
>> their hedge-vandalism in the days before we joined the EEC.
>
>so most hedges were removed prior to 1972?
Yes - that's what I just said.
>
>So why are you blaming and attacking those currently in the industry for
>what was done by their parents?
I'm not - it was Andy who raised the matter. But now that you mention
it, many of the hedge-vandals will still be 'working' now.
--
Paul
Jim Webster
30 years on. But actually more than thirty years on because according to
you and your sources it was all before 1972. So let us say that the date
was 1962. So assuming that you are 30 to 40 before you get to be in
control on a farm, that means that the people you assume are working now
are between 70 and 80. About the same age as the average Latvian SS man
really.
Paul Rooney
<j...@freeserve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
>> >so most hedges were removed prior to 1972?
>>
>>
>> Yes - that's what I just said.
>> >
>> >So why are you blaming and attacking those currently in the industry
>for
>> >what was done by their parents?
>>
>> I'm not - it was Andy who raised the matter. But now that you mention
>> it, many of the hedge-vandals will still be 'working' now.
>
>30 years on. But actually more than thirty years on because according to
>you and your sources it was all
Misquote there.
>before 1972. So let us say that the date
>was 1962.
Or 1970, or 1971, or 1969.....
>So assuming that you are 30 to 40 before you get to be in
>control on a farm,
Boys in their teens were well capable of vandalising hedges for their
greedy dads. These boys will still be 'working' for many years yet.
--
Paul
Jim Webster
know many boys in their teens who were in charge or do you generally
believe that children should be punished for things done by their
parents. So if your father was on a bomber over Dresden then you might
get handed over to the German government if they after ask.
Because remember the fathers of these boys were doing what the
government asked them to.
Paul Rooney
<j...@freeserve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
>Because remember the fathers of these boys were doing what the
>government asked them to.
We've just been there - it's got bug*er all to do with government or
food needs, and *everything* to do with maximising profit. Farmers
ripped out hedges so they could get richer. Same reason they blasted
the land with chemicals.
--
Paul
Jim Webster
> On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 14:16:28 -0000, "Jim Webster"
> <j...@freeserve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >Because remember the fathers of these boys were doing what the
> >government asked them to.
>
> We've just been there - it's got bug*er all to do with government or
> food needs
right so there was no government policy in the 1950s and 1960s to
increase food production in the UK, and they never paid farmers to do
it. In fact during the period 1940 to 1950 they didn't have a department
called "war ag." which actually went in and used heavy, often military,
equipment to rip hedges out.
None of that happened,
fine
Michelle Fulton
>
> Boys in their teens were well capable of vandalising hedges for their
> greedy dads. These boys will still be 'working' for many years yet.
What do you mean by "vandalizing hedges"? I'm not from the UK, but I gather
the concept and purpose of the hedge, just can't seem to make out how you
would vandalize one.
M
Malcolm Kane
<paulr...@aol.com> writes
>Boys in their teens were well capable of vandalising hedges for their
>greedy dads. These boys will still be 'working' for many years yet.
>
You don't seriously suggest that boys in their teens would firstly
refuse to do what their fathers wanted (with regard to farming
practice), secondly that they would oppose a government "push" and
thirdly that in the late 60's early 70's they were sufficiently educated
about the environment?
--
Malcolm Kane
Malcolm Kane
<paulr...@aol.com> writes
>On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 14:16:28 -0000, "Jim Webster"
><j...@freeserve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>Because remember the fathers of these boys were doing what the
>>government asked them to.
>
>We've just been there - it's got bug*er all to do with government or
>food needs,
May I ask how old you are and what part you were taking in agriculture
in the late 50's through to the early 70's?
--
Malcolm Kane
Paul Rooney
No, you may not - unless you can justify the relevance of such absurd
questions.
--
Paul
Paul Rooney
<j...@freeserve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
> and they never paid farmers to do
>it.
At last - a relevant remark. Farmers pulled up the hedges in order to
make more money. That's why they polluted the land with pesticides,
and that's why they are now happy to plant hedges. The notion of them
being responsible stewards of the countrysde is so far from the truth
as to be hilarious in the extreme. Andy has a good point.
--
Paul
Paul Rooney
<mhful...@prodigy-nospam.net> wrote:
>
>What do you mean by "vandalizing hedges"? I'm not from the UK, but I gather
>the concept and purpose of the hedge, just can't seem to make out how you
>would vandalize one.
>
Ripping them out, mainly.
There are other ways.
--
Paul
Paul Rooney
Why on earth shouldn't they have known what they were doing? Plenty of
us in our late teens in the 60s and 70s were already actively involved
in conservation.
You'd have to be a blithering idiot not to realise that grubbing up
hedges was damaging the environment.
Ditto for pesticides.
--
Paul
Malcolm Kane
<paulr...@aol.com> writes
>>May I ask how old you are and what part you were taking in agriculture
>>in the late 50's through to the early 70's?
>
>No, you may not - unless you can justify the relevance of such absurd
>questions.
>
>
giving any evidence of having actual experience of agriculture at the
time being discussed. I am not a farmer and never have been but I am
close enough to know that at the time mentioned certainly in my part of
the world the statement about government are true. You on the other
hand appear to have reason to decry this, so I want to know how old you
were at the time being discussed and your experience, the part of the
world (country) you gained this experience would also help.
Otherwise I am unable to ascertain what you are basing your wild ( in my
experience) statements on.
Can you please explain why this is absurd.
--
Malcolm Kane
Paul Rooney
Do you also suppose that my knowledge of Victorian sewerage systems is
a function of my age/occupation during the reign of Queen Victoria?
Stop being an ass or you're plonked.
--
Paul
Chris Mead
from "Michelle Fulton" <mhful...@prodigy-nospam.net> contains these words:
> "Paul Rooney" <paulr...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:7b0u0v8uiveq691ta...@4ax.com...
> >
> > Boys in their teens were well capable of vandalising hedges for their
> > greedy dads. These boys will still be 'working' for many years yet.
> What do you mean by "vandalizing hedges"? I'm not from the UK, but I gather
> the concept and purpose of the hedge, just can't seem to make out how you
> would vandalize one.
> M
Hedges are best for wildlife if they are still there, rather than
ripped out, but, even if there are still bushes along the hedge-line
they are not very good for wildlife is they are three feet high and two
feet wide rather than 15 feet high, ten feet wide and with nice big
trees every now and then. These are massively used by wildlife and will
typically contain the bulk of wildlige interest in farmland even if they
cover ony one per cent of the area coverted by the fields.
Flauil maintenance, done properly, is fine but can easily be used to
reduce the hedge to a very sorry state.
Laying the hedge is necessary when it is to be used to enclose
livestock. There are many means of laying a hedge but it essentially
means half cutting taller shrubs and laying them horizontally to
regenerate. Spare branches are used to peg the cut pieces into place
and sometimes these take like cuttings further to thicken the hedge.
--
Chris Mead, Hilborough, Norfolk
chris...@zetnet.co.uk or chris...@farm-direct.co.uk
Visit http://www.farm-direct.co.uk/ to find your local farm gate outlets
Visit http://www.birdcare.com/birdon for bird information
And http://www.bto.org/
Malcolm Kane
>On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 15:12:19 +0000, Malcolm Kane
><mal...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <pi3u0voai0uj93g7j...@4ax.com>, Paul Rooney
>><paulr...@aol.com> writes
>>>>May I ask how old you are and what part you were taking in agriculture
>>>>in the late 50's through to the early 70's?
>>>
>>>No, you may not - unless you can justify the relevance of such absurd
>>>questions.
>>>
>>>
>>Justification. You seem to be repeating a lot of "mantra" without
>>giving any evidence of having actual experience of agriculture at the
>>time being discussed. I am not a farmer and never have been but I am
>>close enough to know that at the time mentioned certainly in my part of
>>the world the statement about government are true. You on the other
>>hand appear to have reason to decry this, so I want to know how old you
>>were at the time being discussed and your experience, the part of the
>>world (country) you gained this experience would also help.
>>
>>Otherwise I am unable to ascertain what you are basing your wild ( in my
>>experience) statements on.
>>
>>Can you please explain why this is absurd.
>
>
>Do you also suppose that my knowledge of Victorian sewerage systems is
>a function of my age/occupation during the reign of Queen Victoria?
>Stop being an ass or you're plonked.
>
find people telling the truth an ass. With regard to being plonked I
would consider it an honour to be plonked by those who fail to accept
the truth when it is pointed out to them.
--
Malcolm Kane
Paul Rooney
<mal...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>Can you please explain why this is absurd.
>>
>>
>>Do you also suppose that my knowledge of Victorian sewerage systems is
>>a function of my age/occupation during the reign of Queen Victoria?
>>Stop being an ass or you're plonked.
>>
>Only when it goes against what I *know* to be the truth. Sorry if you
>find people telling the truth an ass.
It's not your statements that are ass-like, it's your stupid questions
(as you would realise if you could read properly).
--
Paul
Jim Webster
> On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 14:46:33 +0000, Malcolm Kane
> <mal...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In message <7b0u0v8uiveq691ta...@4ax.com>, Paul Rooney
> ><paulr...@aol.com> writes
> >
> >>Boys in their teens were well capable of vandalising hedges for
their
> >>greedy dads. These boys will still be 'working' for many years yet.
> >>
> >You don't seriously suggest that boys in their teens would firstly
> >refuse to do what their fathers wanted (with regard to farming
> >practice), secondly that they would oppose a government "push" and
> >thirdly that in the late 60's early 70's they were sufficiently
educated
> >about the environment?
>
> Why on earth shouldn't they have known what they were doing? Plenty of
> us in our late teens in the 60s and 70s were already actively involved
> in conservation.
ah, so what exactly were you doing?
> You'd have to be a blithering idiot not to realise that grubbing up
> hedges was damaging the environment.
> Ditto for pesticides.
don't whinge with your mouth full
Jim Webster
looks like poor Paul has had someone hit a raw nerve
Jim Webster
yep, the government wanted it done.
I love the way he is happy to persecute people for what their parents
did following government policy.
Jim Webster
> On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 14:23:23 -0000, "Jim Webster"
> <j...@freeserve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> > and they never paid farmers to do
> >it.
>
> At last - a relevant remark.
So relevant that I put back in the bits you had snipped
right so there was no government policy in the 1950s and 1960s to
increase food production in the UK, and they never paid farmers to do
it. In fact during the period 1940 to 1950 they didn't have a department
called "war ag." which actually went in and used heavy, often military,
equipment to rip hedges out.
if you don't like it, blame the people who created the policy, which was
actually a Labour government.
Don't worry, I have seen places where the government has paid to pull
hedges out, then paid to put them back in again, and I am willing to
believe that sometime in the next forty years, why they'll pay to pull
them out again.
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
None of that happened,
martin sage
<ca...@portcharlotte.demon.co.uk> writes
>>However, Andy Mabbett is utterly and completely wrong that the hedge
>>destruction was due to the wishes of the 'landowners' - it was a
>>matter of government policy, and heavily subsidised,
>
>
>Sorry, but no - Andy is at least partly right. To differentiate so
>neatly between "landowners" and "government" is naive. The two are
>inextricably enmeshed in a system of lobbying/backscratching that
>traditionally defines the Tory party but latterly the entire political
>system. Agricultural policy was created by government as a response to
>lobbying from those who control the purse strings, ie the landowning
>classes. "Subsides" were then, and remain now, a kickback that enable
>the rich to remain rich and insulated from the reality of the market.
>
>government policies that gave them subsides to rip out the hedgerows,
>are now enthusiastic supporters of new government policies that will
>subsidise putting them back...
The only rich landowners these days are those who have other businesses
and farm as a hobby. The anomalies between agricultural policy and
conservation would fill a book, but suffice to say that farmers who
allowed their hedges to thicken out were penalised by Defra because they
had effectively reduced the cultivated area on which to claim area
payments. This is just one of hundreds of ways in which farmers who want
to conserve wildlife are penalised by the system.
I have now retired from farming and do voluntary warden work so I see
both sides of the argument unlike some of those who contribute to this
ng.
--
martin sage
martin sage
>On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 14:46:33 +0000, Malcolm Kane
><mal...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <7b0u0v8uiveq691ta...@4ax.com>, Paul Rooney
>><paulr...@aol.com> writes
>>
>>>Boys in their teens were well capable of vandalising hedges for their
>>>greedy dads. These boys will still be 'working' for many years yet.
>>>
>>You don't seriously suggest that boys in their teens would firstly
>>refuse to do what their fathers wanted (with regard to farming
>>practice), secondly that they would oppose a government "push" and
>>thirdly that in the late 60's early 70's they were sufficiently educated
>>about the environment?
>
>Why on earth shouldn't they have known what they were doing? Plenty of
>us in our late teens in the 60s and 70s were already actively involved
>in conservation.
>You'd have to be a blithering idiot not to realise that grubbing up
>hedges was damaging the environment.
>Ditto for pesticides.
So is building roads, factories, housing estates, ornamental gardens,
retail parks, refuse tips, sports facilities (how many weeds do you see
on golf courses or football pitches), water parks, business parks,
airports, etc. How much of our coastline is available to wildlife? Why
do you always single out farmers for criticism? 99% of those guilty of
spoiling the environment are non farmers.
--
martin sage
Carl Reavey
<j...@freeserve.spam.co.uk> writes
>
>Paul Rooney <paulr...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:p11u0voi9qbk34b0p...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 14:16:28 -0000, "Jim Webster"
>> <j...@freeserve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Because remember the fathers of these boys were doing what the
>> >government asked them to.
>>
>> We've just been there - it's got bug*er all to do with government or
>> food needs
>
>right so there was no government policy in the 1950s and 1960s to
>increase food production in the UK, and they never paid farmers to do
>it. In fact during the period 1940 to 1950 they didn't have a department
>called "war ag." which actually went in and used heavy, often military,
>equipment to rip hedges out.
>None of that happened,
>
>fine
>
>
Yes it all happened - but the farmers motivation was not some altruistic
mission to solve the country's food production problem - it was greed.
Capitalist, materialist greed. Nothing wrong with that - I am a greedy
capitalist myself - but to try and pretend that the motivation was
anything other than money grubbing is delusional (does that word
exist?).
If I was to claim that I came to Islay and re-built a derelict hotel in
order to contribute to the delicate economy of the Hebrides, provide
employment for the local kiddies, to make Port Charlotte look pretty
again and give groups of affluent English bird watchers somewhere nice
to stay - I would be called a hypocrite. Quite right too. I did it for
the money.
So can we cut the crap?
ps Talking of the legacy of farming families - does anyone know if the
Barbers still making their crappy cheese on what used to be the Somerset
levels? They bulldozed hundreds of miles of hedges and turned huge
areas of glorious old countryside into a prairie when I was a boy in the
1960's.
--
Carl Reavey
http://www.portcharlottehotel.co.uk
http://www.islaylamb.co.uk
Sue & Bob Hobden
"Terry wrote in message after Tim
> > The *managed* hedges I have are either planted post '45 or have been
> > recovered from rows of trees by using a tractor mounted circular saw
> > (hedging). I have a short stretch of coppicing to do next time the field
> > is in set-aside and will try to date the growth.
>
> One step taken round our way is the annual young farmers' hedge-laying
> competition. This usually leaves a stretch of hedge which needs laying to
> complete the field boundary. A hedge layer has just done a stretch down
the
> lane from us, which was a bit patchy to say the least, and now looks a
> lovely job. It will need a few years to fill out properly, but a big
> improvement on what was there before.
I remember going to a Hedge Laying competition at my cousins farm at
Wardington many years ago and both old Li and Stan telling me that I would
have to come back in 5, 10 and 15 years to see how good a job had been done.
Sadly both the old boys died so I couldn't go back to check.
Now, if a laid hedge lasts that long with a touch of maintenance isn't it
cost effective in the long run as apposed to other methods of field boundary
?
--
Bob
www.pooleygreengrowers.org.uk/ about an Allotment site in
Runnymede fighting for it's existence.
martin sage
risen by 20 times in 30 years and they are still poorly paid. Farmers
incomes have fallen 20 fold in real terms in that time span.
--
martin sage
Carl Reavey
<mal...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk> writes
What is so controversial about what Paul is saying? He is saying that
farmers, motivated by nothing except money, wrecked huge areas of an
ecologically diverse countryside that had remained largely unchanged
since the Enclosures by pouring chemicals onto it and bulldozing the old
hedgerows.
To try and intimate, as Jim is doing, that the farmers were the innocent
little pawns in a Government policy over which the landowners had no
control is disingenuous. To try and shift the blame for the destruction
on to the EU is simply wrong. I would agree that while the CAP was a
political and economic masterstroke in the post war era, it is now the
biggest problem facing environmentalists - but there is no way that is
can be blamed for the desecration of the UK countryside in the 1960's...
All this environmental stuff from farmers is coming about because they
know the writing is on the wall. They know that reform of the CAP is
inevitable, that their wretched subsidies are going to be either removed
or shifted onto environmental management, and so they are now suggesting
that they have been the innocent victims all along, that in fact they
were always conservationists. "Stewards of the Countryside" indeed!!
"Eat British Beef!! You townies should stay out of the country.
Where's my subsidy? I know I drive a Toyota - what's that go to do with
it? Did you know the British Army buys its beef in Argentina?
Disgraceful!! These Zeter tractors are great value for money...".
Brilliant....
Yurgghhh....
Carl Reavey
Fulton <mhful...@prodigy-nospam.net> writes
DDT is good. Subtle, the hedge is still there, but it still works.
A caterpillar is good too. A few tens of thousands can make a
difference. One Caterpillar however, can do the whole job in half and
hour...
Carl Reavey
<j...@freeserve.spam.co.uk> writes
>
>Paul Rooney <paulr...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:6q3u0v4121j1pv13p...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 14:28:23 GMT, "Michelle Fulton"
>> <mhful...@prodigy-nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> >What do you mean by "vandalizing hedges"? I'm not from the UK, but I
>gather
>> >the concept and purpose of the hedge, just can't seem to make out how
>you
>> >would vandalize one.
>> >
>>
>> Ripping them out, mainly.
>> There are other ways.
>
>yep, the government wanted it done.
>
>I love the way he is happy to persecute people for what their parents
>did following government policy.
>
And farmers always do what the government tells them. Government
Policy. That's the farmers bible.
Which is why when the Government bans fox-hunting, the farmers will be
the first to tug their forelocks and say...
"We always follow Government policy"
Luvverly...
Carl Reavey
<mar...@sagefarm.demon.co.uk> writes
We don't. We love you really...
Carl Reavey
<mar...@sagefarm.demon.co.uk> writes
>Relative to the cost off wheat and pigmeat, farm workers wages have
>risen by 20 times in 30 years and they are still poorly paid. Farmers
>incomes have fallen 20 fold in real terms in that time span.
So does that mean that my mate Farmer Tony (who bought a new BMW 5
series to replace his ageing Mercedes 520SE last year) used to drive 20
BMW's? Or could have done if he wanted to 30 years ago?
I'd tell you how old the Merc was if I knew - but you couldn't tell coz
it had a private number plate...
I'll ask Farmer Archie. He bought a new Merc earlier this year. He'll
know. Wouldn't like to ask Tony - might embarrass the bloke...
Sniff....
Alan Gardiner
> Yes it all happened - but the farmers motivation was not some
altruistic
> mission to solve the country's food production problem - it was greed.
> Capitalist, materialist greed. Nothing wrong with that - I am a
greedy
> capitalist myself - but to try and pretend that the motivation was
> anything other than money grubbing is delusional (does that word
> exist?).
>
> If I was to claim that I came to Islay and re-built a derelict hotel
in
> order to contribute to the delicate economy of the Hebrides, provide
> employment for the local kiddies, to make Port Charlotte look pretty
> again and give groups of affluent English bird watchers somewhere nice
> to stay - I would be called a hypocrite. Quite right too. I did it
for
> the money.
>
> So can we cut the crap?
>
been more rewarding alternatives available so that there must have been
other reasons as well.
Alan
Jim Webster
Carl Reavey <ca...@portcharlotte.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Cv3+KYA$EzD+...@portcharlotte.demon.co.uk...
> In article <aun0i7$136$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>, Jim Webster
> <j...@freeserve.spam.co.uk> writes
> >
> >Paul Rooney <paulr...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:p11u0voi9qbk34b0p...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 14:16:28 -0000, "Jim Webster"
> >> <j...@freeserve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >Because remember the fathers of these boys were doing what the
> >> >government asked them to.
> >>
> >> We've just been there - it's got bug*er all to do with government
or
> >> food needs
> >
> >right so there was no government policy in the 1950s and 1960s to
> >increase food production in the UK, and they never paid farmers to do
> >it. In fact during the period 1940 to 1950 they didn't have a
department
> >called "war ag." which actually went in and used heavy, often
military,
> >equipment to rip hedges out.
> >None of that happened,
> >
> >fine
> >
> >
>
> Yes it all happened - but the farmers motivation was not some
altruistic
> mission to solve the country's food production problem - it was greed.
> Capitalist, materialist greed
yep, exactly the same that makes teachers turn up on a wet morning to
teach, makes lads at our local ship yard turn out to make yet another
nuclear submarine.
. Nothing wrong with that - I am a greedy
> capitalist myself - but to try and pretend that the motivation was
> anything other than money grubbing is delusional
(does that word exist?). I have seen it used before and assume so.
back to the comment.
If the elected government decided that they want to proceed with a
certain policy, whether it is to build nuclear submarines, teach
children to read or increase agricultural production, why is it wrong
for a citizen to come along, take the money, and do the work?
Yet according to Paul, only farmers are wrong to do this. Farming is an
economic activity. We do it for the money. Without the money it doesn't
happen.
Jim Webster
Some will, some will not. Just the same as hedges. Our average field
size is under 2 hectares.
I can say in all honesty that there has perhaps been 30 yards of hedge
gone from this spot in 150 years.
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
>
Jim Webster
Sue & Bob Hobden <hob...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:aunc13$8nrfe$1...@ID-93475.news.dfncis.de...
> I remember going to a Hedge Laying competition at my cousins farm at
> Wardington many years ago and both old Li and Stan telling me that I
would
> have to come back in 5, 10 and 15 years to see how good a job had been
done.
> Sadly both the old boys died so I couldn't go back to check.
> Now, if a laid hedge lasts that long with a touch of maintenance isn't
it
> cost effective in the long run as apposed to other methods of field
boundary
depends on what you are using it for.
With cattle and sheep it is wise to put a wire fence of some sort to
protect the hedge, otherwise they will eat their way straight through it
given time. Hence as a pure stock barrier a hedge is massively over
expensive. It has advantages as a windbreak.
Unfortunately the main cost of hedges is the cost of laying them,
something that has to be done every ten to twenty years depending on
type. Back in 1965 this spot had 5 full time men and a lad. Now there is
me with larger numbers of animals, our last employee left 1999 and in
the current climate cannot be replaced. I can lay hedges, have done, but
other than to mend gaps I haven't had time to even pick up a bill hook
for over six years.
Jim Webster
> In article <8qMf4WEr...@sagefarm.demon.co.uk>, martin sage
> <mar...@sagefarm.demon.co.uk> writes
> >Relative to the cost off wheat and pigmeat, farm workers wages have
> >risen by 20 times in 30 years and they are still poorly paid. Farmers
> >incomes have fallen 20 fold in real terms in that time span.
>
>
> So does that mean that my mate Farmer Tony (who bought a new BMW 5
> series to replace his ageing Mercedes 520SE last year) used to drive
20
> BMW's? Or could have done if he wanted to 30 years ago?
>
> I'd tell you how old the Merc was if I knew - but you couldn't tell
coz
> it had a private number plate...
an argument on a par with "computer programmers are over paid, have you
seen how much Bill Gates earns!" :-))
>
> I'll ask Farmer Archie. He bought a new Merc earlier this year.
He'll
> know. Wouldn't like to ask Tony - might embarrass the bloke...
ask him how much his family has invested in the business
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
>
Paul Rooney
<j...@freeserve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
>If the elected government decided that they want to proceed with a
>certain policy, whether it is to build nuclear submarines, teach
>children to read or increase agricultural production, why is it wrong
>for a citizen to come along, take the money, and do the work?
>Yet according to Paul, only farmers are wrong to do this.
Really? How do you make that out?
>Farming is an
>economic activity. We do it for the money. Without the money it doesn't
>happen.
Gosh! There was me thinking that you ripped out the hedges because you
were only obeying orders!
The *last* people who could possibly be called stewards of the
countryside are those who have a vested interest in turning it into
short term cash, ie. farmers.
Fortunately, we have now curtailed the activities (and profits) of
farmers.
--
Paul
Paul Rooney
<mar...@sagefarm.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>You'd have to be a blithering idiot not to realise that grubbing up
>>hedges was damaging the environment.
>>Ditto for pesticides.
>
>So is building roads, factories, housing estates, ornamental gardens,
>retail parks, refuse tips, sports facilities (how many weeds do you see
>on golf courses or football pitches), water parks, business parks,
>airports, etc. How much of our coastline is available to wildlife? Why
>do you always single out farmers for criticism? 99% of those guilty of
>spoiling the environment are non farmers.
Anyone who has the slightest interest in birdwatching will know that
the biggest single factor in the huge deterioration in birds'
habitat/numbers/diversity is farming practice, NOT roads, houses,
tips, or any of the other things you mention. None of these comes
close in terms of the damage done to our countryside.
Farmers as stewards of the countryside?
What a laugh!
--
Paul
Paul Rooney
<j...@freeserve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Do you also suppose that my knowledge of Victorian sewerage systems is
>> a function of my age/occupation during the reign of Queen Victoria?
>> Stop being an ass or you're plonked.
>
>looks like poor Paul has had someone hit a raw nerve
Not at all - I just made that up as an example to show Malcolm the
error of his argument.
You fancy yourself as a steward of the countryside, do you, Jim?
Ho, ho, ho!
--
Paul
Paul Rooney
<j...@freeserve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Paul Rooney <paulr...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:6q3u0v4121j1pv13p...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 14:28:23 GMT, "Michelle Fulton"
>> <mhful...@prodigy-nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> >What do you mean by "vandalizing hedges"? I'm not from the UK, but I
>gather
>> >the concept and purpose of the hedge, just can't seem to make out how
>you
>> >would vandalize one.
>> >
>>
>> Ripping them out, mainly.
>> There are other ways.
>
>yep, the government wanted it done.
>
>I love the way he is happy to persecute people for what their parents
>did following government policy.
They and their parents are still very much at the helm - and are now
wanting to be stewards of the countryside that they have devastated.
What a joke!
Like putting the Yorkshire Ripper in charge of a girls' convent
school!
--
Paul
Paul Rooney
<ca...@portcharlotte.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>We don't. We love you really...
Of course. England just wouldn't be the same without its moaning
farmers. According to a very old person I know, farmers have always
been moaners. Moaning all the way to the bank.
Now I must get back to planning tomorrow's trespass....
--
Paul
Jim Webster
> On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 18:29:47 -0000, "Jim Webster"
> <j...@freeserve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >If the elected government decided that they want to proceed with a
> >certain policy, whether it is to build nuclear submarines, teach
> >children to read or increase agricultural production, why is it wrong
> >for a citizen to come along, take the money, and do the work?
> >Yet according to Paul, only farmers are wrong to do this.
>
> Really? How do you make that out?
>
> >Farming is an
> >economic activity. We do it for the money. Without the money it
doesn't
> >happen.
>
> Gosh! There was me thinking that you ripped out the hedges because you
> were only obeying orders!
shows you might be better starting reading and stopping thinking
>
> The *last* people who could possibly be called stewards of the
> countryside are those who have a vested interest in turning it into
> short term cash, ie. farmers.
> Fortunately, we have now curtailed the activities (and profits) of
> farmers.
>
you have? and what particular actions did you take to achieve this?
Stopped eating food perhaps as a market reduction mechanism?
Or have you decided only to eat food made from chemical substrates in
major factories?
Jim Webster
sorry but when did I ever claim that. Obviously you will now explain
just exactly what you do to protect the countryside.
Jim Webster
so you what it brought into UK law, that children can be punished for
the crimes of their parents. Unto how many generations?
Jim Webster
exactly, we should have covered it with roads, factories, housing
estates, ornamental gardens,
> >retail parks, refuse tips, sports facilities (how many weeds do you
see
> >on golf courses or football pitches), water parks, business parks,
> >airports, etc.
all of which Paul thinks are SO much better for birds than farm land
Malcolm Kane
<paulr...@aol.com> writes
>The *last* people who could possibly be called stewards of the
>countryside are those who have a vested interest in turning it into
>short term cash, ie. farmers.
>Fortunately, we have now curtailed the activities (and profits) of
>farmers.
>
What has given you such a down on farmers in particular- jealousy or
what?
--
Malcolm Kane
Malcolm Kane
<ca...@portcharlotte.demon.co.uk> writes
Snip
> They know that reform of the CAP is
>inevitable, that their wretched subsidies are going to be either removed
>Where's my subsidy?
Do you equally object to the subsidies given to rail transport, the
steel industry, car production over the years?
Also I think if you look into it subsidies for farmers have been
comparatively small for a number of years now. I no they had virtually
disappeared when I was keeping livestock a number of years ago.
Certainly those available to us had.
--
Malcolm Kane
Malcolm Kane
<ca...@portcharlotte.demon.co.uk> writes
>Which is why when the Government bans fox-hunting, the farmers will be
>the first to tug their forelocks and say...
Are you suggesting that the majority of farmers are hunters? Because in
my experience this is far from true here in John Peel country.
--
Malcolm Kane
Malcolm Kane
<paulr...@aol.com> writes
>
>Anyone who has the slightest interest in birdwatching will know that
>the biggest single factor in the huge deterioration in birds'
>habitat/numbers/diversity is farming practice,
How strange - we disagree again Paul. I have more than a passing
interest in bird watching and often hear farming practices being blamed
for the decline of birds. What I don't see so often is good research
which identifies exactly which of these practices are to blame. It also
does not explain how it is that the practices (certainly in this area)
have been comparatively slow in changing but the fall in populations
seems to have been far faster. So no I don't know that what you state
is true, I may suspect it, I may even believe it but I can't be as
dogmatic as you and many others are.
--
Malcolm Kane
Tim Lamb
<paulr...@aol.com> writes
>>>We've just been there - it's got bug*er all to do with government or
>>
>>May I ask how old you are and what part you were taking in agriculture
>>in the late 50's through to the early 70's?
>
>No, you may not - unless you can justify the relevance of such absurd
>questions.
We could try a *work round*.
Do you have direct experience of the activity you are criticising?
This is a widely cross posted thread so the people posting from uba
have no way of judging the weight of knowledge you bring from elsewhere.
I was growing up on this farm during the '40s and '50s and can itemise
the reductions/additions to hedges from then to the present, should you
wish.
regards
>
--
Tim Lamb
Tim Lamb
Fulton <mhful...@prodigy-nospam.net> writes
>
>>
>> Boys in their teens were well capable of vandalising hedges for their
>> greedy dads. These boys will still be 'working' for many years yet.
>
>the concept and purpose of the hedge, just can't seem to make out how you
>would vandalize one.
This is a particularly British *thing*, Michelle.
Basically, hedges and trees, planted/allowed to grow on farmland are
considered National assets; providing homes for wildlife and an
agreeable landscape for our largely urban population.
Current legislation is aimed at protection and enhancement and is at
odds with wartime exigencies when scrub and hedge removal were
encouraged.
regards
--
Tim Lamb
Michelle Fulton
"Tim Lamb" <t...@marford.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pBtqeEAr...@marford.demon.co.uk...
>
> Current legislation is aimed at protection and enhancement and is at
> odds with wartime exigencies when scrub and hedge removal were
> encouraged.
Thanks, everyone, for the explanations. I understand the purpose of the
hedge row and can see the aesthetic value as well, but can also understand
what a hassle it would be to have your crops separated by hedges. I also
think it must have something to do with the island (limited land) mentality.
We tend toward preserving whole tracts of land/forest/marsh for the
wildlife, but then we have more land so more options. Personally, I think
the English countryside is beautiful, but I also thing the prairie, with
nary a tree or shrub, is beautiful, as is the desert. I guess you could
say, I prefer things in their natural state, which doesn't include hedge
rows or crops, but the crops are necessary ;-)
M
Paul Rooney
wrote:
>In article <pi3u0voai0uj93g7j...@4ax.com>, Paul Rooney
><paulr...@aol.com> writes
>>>>We've just been there - it's got bug*er all to do with government or
>>>>food needs,
>>>
>>>May I ask how old you are and what part you were taking in agriculture
>>>in the late 50's through to the early 70's?
>>
>>No, you may not - unless you can justify the relevance of such absurd
>>questions.
>
>We could try a *work round*.
>
> Do you have direct experience of the activity you are criticising?
Do you have any direct experience of slavery? No? So you're not in a
position to criticise it? You are falling into the same pit as
Malcolm.
Try this - it's more relevant: Do you know what you're talking about?
Answer: Yes.
My age, experience (direct or otherwise), income, political viewpoint,
colour of hair/eyes, religion..... etc. are wholly irrelevant.
You are free to disagree with what anyone says. You should engage,
though, with *what that person says*, not attempt to sideline the
discussion into one that concerns the person him/herself.
Don't bother trying to find out about my personal experiences of
agriculture - they are not relevant to this discussion.
I'm surprised any of this needs saying (other than to Jim - he always
needs reminding about the nature of logical discussion).
--
Paul
Paul Rooney
<j...@freeserve.spam.co.uk> wrote:
>so you what it brought into UK law
Education is all.
--
Paul
Tim Lamb
<mal...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk> writes
Umm.. we have discussed this before... single interest group members
tend to repeat the mantra of their organisations fund raising publicity.
That said, there has been an acceptance of the BTO survey figures with
regard to the decline in some specialist farmland species. As to blame?
Oz and I have claimed that little has changed on our particular bits of
countryside during the last 25 years so not guilty guv. however, none of
us know how fragile a thread maintains a thriving species.
The bird proofing of grain stores, control of rodents, reliance on
winter cropping, quicker cultivation of Autumn stubbles, grouping of
dairy cattle on larger units, reduction in cattle numbers in East
Anglia, bolus worming, routine flail hedging etc. each a minor change
and not necessarily our choice may just tip the scales away from
breeding success.
One could say to Paul look to your own plastic soffit, postage stamp
garden, domestic cat and concerns about food hygiene but this would not
further the discussion.
regards
>
--
Tim Lamb
Paul Rooney
<mal...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <u4ku0vkp3018eiipv...@4ax.com>, Paul Rooney
><paulr...@aol.com> writes
>
>>
>>Anyone who has the slightest interest in birdwatching will know that
>>the biggest single factor in the huge deterioration in birds'
>>habitat/numbers/diversity is farming practice,
>
>How strange - we disagree again Paul. I have more than a passing
>interest in bird watching and often hear farming practices being blamed
>for the decline of birds. What I don't see so often is good research
>which identifies exactly which of these practices are to blame.
Contact the RSPB - they'll be happy to let you know.
> It also
>does not explain how it is that the practices (certainly in this area)
>have been comparatively slow in changing but the fall in populations
>seems to have been far faster.
There can be many reasons for this sort of thing - birds are affected
by practices in *other* areas, for example.
Don't take my word for it - ask the experts.
--
Paul
Paul Rooney
wrote:
>
>One could say to Paul look to your own plastic soffit, postage stamp
>garden, domestic cat and concerns about food hygiene but this would not
>further the discussion.
>
I take your point, but I have never seen research which attributes the
declines to these factors.
Incidentally, my soffit is rotten wood, my garden full of crawlies,
birds and other forms of untidiness, and I was brought up to
understand that hygiene was something that effete southerners did.
--
Paul
Jim Webster
but then the tax payer never had to subsidise me through university
Jim Webster
> On Sun, 29 Dec 2002 20:25:59 +0000, Tim Lamb <t...@marford.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <pi3u0voai0uj93g7j...@4ax.com>, Paul Rooney
> ><paulr...@aol.com> writes
> >>>>We've just been there - it's got bug*er all to do with government
or
> >>>>food needs,
> >>>
> >>>May I ask how old you are and what part you were taking in
agriculture
> >>>in the late 50's through to the early 70's?
> >>
> >>No, you may not - unless you can justify the relevance of such
absurd
> >>questions.
> >
> >We could try a *work round*.
> >
> > Do you have direct experience of the activity you are criticising?
>
> Do you have any direct experience of slavery? No? So you're not in a
> position to criticise it? You are falling into the same pit as
> Malcolm.
>
> Try this - it's more relevant: Do you know what you're talking about?
> Answer: Yes.
be awfully nice if you provided evidence of it
Jim Webster
Sue & Bob Hobden
Jim wrote in message >>
> depends on what you are using it for.
> With cattle and sheep it is wise to put a wire fence of some sort to
> protect the hedge, otherwise they will eat their way straight through it
> given time. Hence as a pure stock barrier a hedge is massively over
> expensive. It has advantages as a windbreak.
They had a mixed arable and livestock farm, and the hedges were mainly
Hawthorn and very thick/close such that a dog would have great difficulty in
getting through. Don't remember any stock fencing other than the odd bit of
barbed wire to protect a damaged bit of hedge (Hunt).
>
> Unfortunately the main cost of hedges is the cost of laying them,
> something that has to be done every ten to twenty years depending on
> type. Back in 1965 this spot had 5 full time men and a lad. Now there is
> me with larger numbers of animals, our last employee left 1999 and in
> the current climate cannot be replaced. I can lay hedges, have done, but
> other than to mend gaps I haven't had time to even pick up a bill hook
> for over six years.
>
Perhaps it's time it was promoted as good exercise for "Townies" then, which
it is, and you farmers could charge them for the privilege.
Hedge Laying is good exercise, good for the environment, good for wildlife,
and beautiful to behold over years, it has to catch on. :-)
Regards
Bob
www.pooleygreengrowers.org.uk/ about an Allotment site in
Runnymede fighting for it's existence.
Phil
<j...@freeserve.spam.co.uk> writes
figures for hedge grubbing between farming and the developers. In our
area hedges are going at quite a rate. New housing estates often don't
even allow boundary hedges to be planted.
Lets take the past 15 years..........
--
Phil. Empty bellies not retoric fuel the flames of revolution.
Carl Reavey
<mal...@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk> writes
>In message <qP70CnANjzD+EwM$@portcharlotte.demon.co.uk>, Carl Reavey
><ca...@portcharlotte.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>Snip
>
>> They know that reform of the CAP is
>>inevitable, that their wretched subsidies are going to be either removed
>
>>Where's my subsidy?
>
>Do you equally object to the subsidies given to rail transport, the
>steel industry, car production over the years?
Broadly - yes....
>
>Also I think if you look into it subsidies for farmers have been
>comparatively small for a number of years now. I no they had virtually
>disappeared when I was keeping livestock a number of years ago.
>Certainly those available to us had.
Ah ha!! I knew the truth would out....
<grin>
>
>
--
Carl Reavey
http://www.portcharlottehotel.co.uk
http://www.islaylamb.co.uk
Carl Reavey
>size is under 2 hectares.
>I can say in all honesty that there has perhaps been 30 yards of hedge
>gone from this spot in 150 years.
>
>
Then that's fantastic Jim - you should be really proud. I also think
that this will mean that your farm will eventually be properly
recognised and you will be appropriately rewarded for your foresight by
society as a whole.
The truth is that I am not against subsidy per se. That would of course
be a ludicrous position to take - what I am against is inappropriate
subsidy of environmentally damaging farming practices. The world is
waking up, actually very quickly and suddenly, to the immense harm that
this is doing. Using subsidies to produce surpluses of cheap food that
are then dumped at below market prices into unsubsidised third world
markets is immoral as well as environmentally unsustainable. Farming
and politics needs to address this in a reasonable time frame, or
something truly horrible will happen...
>--
>Jim Webster
>
>"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
>
> 'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
>
>
>
>>
Oz
>It also does not explain how it is that the practices (certainly in this area)
>have been comparatively slow in changing but the fall in populations seems to
>have been far faster.
I have to say that this is what bothers me about the perceived view.
Most places I know have changed very little, other than the loss of
elms, in the 30-odd years I have lived in the countryside. That includes
areas in the SSW, central and eastern england. Certainly nothing that
can conveniently explain the reported losses of birdlife.
Just for information in 30 years we have removed precisely no hedges.
There was a major removal of hedges in about 1/4 of the farm in the
1950's.
--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.
Derek Moody
Ah! That's it, someone must have caught him last time and now he bears a
grudge.
Cheerio,
--
Derek Moody
<URL:mailto:paulr...@aol.com> wrote:
> Anyone who has the slightest interest in birdwatching will know that
> the biggest single factor in the huge deterioration in birds'
> habitat/numbers/diversity is farming practice, NOT roads, houses,
No. it's cats.