BNP/Foot-and-Mouth New Labour's Final Solution to The Farming Question
Y
Back in the early 70s, the coal miners brought Edward Heath's Tory government
to its knees. The humiliation was neither forgotten nor forgiven. In 1979,
Margaret Thatcher's newly elected Tory government set about making methodical
plans to take and, and defeat, the miners - the 'enemy within'. As soon as
these preparations - including the stockpiling of huge coal stocks at power
stations and the further para-militarisation of the police - were complete,
Thatcher & Co duly manoeuvred the miners into going on strike.
At the end of the long, bitter battle that followed, Britain's coal industry -
once one of the mainstays of our economic and hence political independence, lay
in ruins. Not that this bothered the Tories - they had taken the revenge they
wanted, and had broken the back of militant opposition to their project to
remould Britain on free market lines.
Back in last autumn, the fuel protesters brought Tony Blair's New Labour
government to its knees. The humiliation was neither forgotten nor forgiven.
Labour's back-room planners used the 60 days' grace the protesters foolishly
gave them to reorganise and head the protest off next time. This they did, but
the second round of the fuel protest ended in an honourable draw, not
humiliation for the protesters. Worse still for Blair & Co., the protesters
clearly retained the ability to mount further crippling blockades in the future
should they be forced to do so. Such a threat is clearly intolerable to a
government with the totalitarian instincts of New Labour.
And who were the protesters? Hauliers and farmers! People who would not only
remain very angry over the continued fuel tax rip-off, but who would be likely
to find fresh reason for an even bigger protest when Blair's townie government
pushed through its ban on hunting. There can be no doubt that New Labour's
backroom planners would have been working the nearest they ever do to overtime
to find ways to break the back of their 'enemy within' and prevent a repeat of
the blockade crisis.
A number of Countryside Alliance supporters have voiced their suspicions that
the Government or Animal Rights extremists even went so far as to deliberately
import the foot-and-mouth virus so as to get the huge 'Liberty and Livelihood'
March - an event which would have severely embarrassed Blair and Co in the
crucial run-up to the General Election - cancelled.
The BNP believes that this is a conspiracy theory too far. But, on the other
hand, the Government's handling of the foot-and-mouth crisis bears all the
hallmarks of an operation that they don't want to succeed. When you look at the
facts, we agree with the suspicions being expressed by more and more farmers
and people in the know: New Labour have found in foot-and-mouth the perfect,
plausibly deniable weapon to break the farmers and countryside protesters once
and for all, and to put the boot into many independent hauliers at the same
time.
Just think about it:
1. It is universally acknowledged that the 1967-68 outbreak included many
incidents which were the result of wind-borne viruses. Yet, in 2001, Labour's
urban faggot Agriculture Minister, Nick Brown, spent the first critical weeks
of the outbreak crowing about his 'early' movement restrictions had 'contained'
the virus and that the danger was all but over. To their shame, the media
swallowed this claptrap but, there again, most media workers are townies as
well. Even so, it shouldn't be beyond the wit of any intelligent person to work
out that a disease that was spread by the wind in 1967 might just conceivably
be a tad difficult to contain with mere movement restrictions in 2001!
2. Despite all their experience of dealing with foot-and-mouth in the
past, the Government-directed bureaucrats at MAFF failed to provide any
guidance in the first critical ten days or so to the new generation of farmers
now in charge of most of our national herd and flock. What would have been so
difficult about running a series of public information announcements on TV and
radio, and in issuing an immediate directive that ALL livestock farms should
IMMEDIATELY set up straw disinfectant points and, where possible, bring their
animals in from the edges of their farms so as to minimise the chances of
contact with their neighbour's animals?
3. Similarly, Local Education Authorities in livestock areas received NO
central government or MAFF advice for weeks, despite the fact that schools
attended by children from different farms are a very obvious source of
potential cross-infection. They should have been instructed immediately to
install disinfectant mats and footbaths. Instead, LEAs were reduced to asking
other LEAs in infected areas what they were doing, and making up their own
precautions as they went along. By the time elementary steps were being taken
several weeks after the outbreak began, the damage was almost certainly already
done.
4. The same is true of shops, garages and similar public meeting places in
livestock areas. It would have taken just a handful of telephone calls from the
Ministry of Agriculture to key personnel in the big supermarket and garage
chains to have instructed them to order every single branch in livestock areas
to put disinfected carpet or cardboard and foot dips outside their entrances.
The cost would have been minimal, and the companies concerned could have made a
bit of good publicity for themselves by showing how responsible they were.
Plus, the example would then have rubbed off on the smaller shops nearby.
County towns would then have been disinfectant zones, rather than virus
dispersal points.
5. What caused the rapid change of policy on burning and burying the
slaughtered animals on-farm? This was the standard method of disposal in
1967-68, and was used without exception in the early stages of this year's
outbreak. Then, without any explanation, it was stopped. Why? Was it suddenly
realised that the palls of smoke and heated, rising air were actually spreading
foot-and-mouth spores? If that's the case, then the Government and MAFF owe not
just an apology, but also huge compensation bills to every extra farm that
their misguided policy infected. If it's not the case, then what on earth are
they doing shooting animals and then leaving them lying in heaps in fields and
farmyards for days on end until they can be taken to the overworked rendering
plants struggling to dispose of the sudden rush of corpses?
6. And what the devil are MAFF officials and - one hopes - well briefed -
Ministers, doing giving the order to leave thousands of carcasses lying to rot
for days on end when they are perfectly well aware that foot-and-mouth can be
spread by birds, particularly carrion birds such as crows and rooks? It may not
please squeamish Islington chatterers to think about it, but everyone in the
country knows that if you leave a dead animal outside for more than an hour or
so, the black scavengers will appear from nowhere and peck out the eyes and
tongue before anything else. Then, with their feet and head feathers covered in
an extremely infectious virus, they'll fly off a couple of miles away and hop
about in the fields around, for example, lambing ewes, looking either for
weaklings or for the afterbirth, and no doubt leaving foot-and-mouth spores
everywhere they stand on the grass near the grazing animals. Then, at
nighttime, rats, foxes and badgers will take their turn. A more efficient
disease dispersal policy it's hard to imagine!
7. What were the MAFF officials who helped produce the extraordinarily
tough anti-BSE restrictions and oversaw a purely precautionary mass slaughter
of older cattle out of fear of BSE/CJD, doing letting the Government allow the
horse racing fraternity to carry on creating further perfect foot-and-mouth
exchange centres at race meetings? The Countryside Alliance acted with
commendable responsibility in calling off their giant march, so why did the
Government not match that by saying 'no' to horse racing? Was it just the
thought of all the lost betting tax revenue, or another sign of New Labour's
hidden agenda?
8. Finally, what was Nick Brown doing assuring all and sundry that the
disease was under control - thereby encouraging complacency and undermining
attempts to encourage serious precautions, when the first 100 or so cases
showed a far wider nationwide spread than the entire 1967-68 outbreak, thereby
automatically raising the possibility of a Britain-wide catastrophe. This is a
Government that is positively fanatical about molly-coddling the entire
population, banning anything remotely risky and, supposedly, preventing cruelty
to animals. Yet, when it came to foot-and-mouth, they acted as if risk-taking
should be encouraged. Why?
More and more farmers are beginning to think that there's something distinctly
fishy about all this. Either we have a case of Government and civil service
incompetence on a huge scale, or there's a clique of people at the top who
actually want to see Britain's livestock farmers and rural hauliers either
destroyed altogether or, at best, rendered totally reliant on state hand-outs
and thus in the pockets of the Powers-That-Be ("Turn up at Stanlow again and
you won't get your post-F&M recovery grant!")
The BNP believes that this isn't incompetence. New Labour has just too many
reasons for wanting to tip British agriculture over the edge for the kind of
things listed above all to be accidental:
a) The 'need' to break an immensely powerful and increasingly militant
protest force before high fuel tax or a hunting ban brings them back on the
street;
b) The 'need' to free up thousands of acres for farmland for the huge
housing developments which will allow the internal migration of whites from our
increasingly unpleasant cities as they run away from the problems caused by
decades of liberalism, multiculturalism and almost unrestricted immigration.
"Emigration," said Karl Marx "is the prophylactic of revolution." You can bet
your last Pound that 'ex'-Marxists like Jack Straw are well aware of this, and
of the extent to which untold millions of ordinary voters are nearing the end
of their tether over such issues.
c) At the heart of the New Labour second term project is the abolition of
Sterling and the imposition of the Euro. Since the Europhiles know that this
will have to be forced on a reluctant population, there's again a very pressing
reason for them to break the one group in Middle Britain that has already
learned to flex its industrial muscle on a different issue, but which could
very easily switch targets and become the leaders of a populist revolt against
the subjugation of Britain in the Euro Empire.
d) Blair's new 'multicultural', redesigned "State formerly known as the
UK" just doesn't have room for the traditional values and ethnic British
identity epitomised by the communities of rural Britain. "You can't make an
omelette within cracking some eggs," wrote Lenin, another hero of the 1968
Marxists now running the government, BBC and upper echelons of the civil
service. They haven't forgotten that either, and the creation of their
indigestible multiculti omelette demands the cracking of the 'hideously white'
rural backbone of Britain.
e) Islington Men, Hampstead Actresses and Clapham Common Transvestites all
hate and despise the country, the country way of life, and the essential
honesty and decency of country people. Add to that the Old Labour class hatred
of 'landowners' and foxhunters and you've got an entire ruling class that
secretly delights in seeing the shredding of the fabric of rural Britain.
SO WHAT'S THE BNP ANSWER?
1) The British people as a whole must understand that disasters such as
the foot-and-mouth epidemic are directly related to the voting choices they've
made in the past. They voted for 'free trade' parties, so they got 'free'
trade, so now they've got one of the diseases spread very efficiently by 'free'
trade. Just as they haven't got coal or steel industries worth talking about,
and have a manufacturing sector that is withering away by the month. Don't
complain people, you voted for it! If you now don't like it you'll have to
learn to vote against it, and the only way to do that is to vote for a
nationalist party rather than an internationalist one.
2) It's time to recognise that the total slaughter policy that worked in
the days when we imported meat only from countries which were also
Foot-and-Mouth free, such as New Zealand and Canada, and before we had to
endure floods of asylum seekers from countries where the disease is epidemic.
Now that 'free' trade and multiculturalism have changed all that, there is no
way of keeping the virus out of the country.
Accordingly, until those policies are changed, we should end the
control-by-mass-slaughter policy at once. There is a perfectly effective anti
Foot-and-Mouth vaccine available, and it should be used on the entire national
cattle, pig, sheep and goat population. The fact that the present vaccine is
(owing to criminal lack of government-sponsored research) rather crude and
makes the animals unsuitable for export for 18 months shouldn't prevent this.
After all, slaughtered animals can't be exported either, nor can uninfected
ones be for the duration of the epidemic and six months after its official end,
and farms which have had the virus will not be allowed even to restock for six
months, so won't be producing meat for a year at the very least.
Furthermore, the meat from vaccinated animals is perfectly fit for human
consumption, so foreign meat imports should be banned whenever the food can be
supplied from our own farms. Farmers will thus have a market for their meat and
will neither go bust nor have to be subsidised, our inability to export meat
won't matter, and we won't be bringing further outbreaks of the disease with
Third World meat imports
3) While we're waiting to import or grow enough vaccine to do this, far
greater efforts must be made to slow down the spread of the virus.
These should include: a) compulsory disinfectant areas in all rural
supermarkets, public utilities such as Post Offices, schools and railway
stations; b) regulations forcing - and paying - agricultural contractors to
pressure wash and disinfect their equipment before moving from farm-to-farm; c)
an immediate end to the practice of leaving slaughtered infected animals in the
open; d) all livestock farms to adopt the same level of precautions as ones in
infected areas.
4) The future of our farming industry and the maintenance of our
tourist-revenue producing rural landscape must be guaranteed by a raft of
measures designed to allow farmers and the rural economy to survive the six
month 'no livestock' rule on infected land, and the long period after
restocking before new animals produce any income. Measures in this regard must
include:
a) Compensation for slaughtered animals at full current market value, plus
a percentage based on the estimated cost of restocking at the inevitably higher
prices which will be commanded by beasts when demand rises;
b) Compensation for lost income for farmers not directly affected, but
unable to get livestock to market before it is past its prime;
c) Local and national tax relief for tourism-based businesses hit by land
closures and falling numbers of visitors;
d) Drawings/wages compensation for farmers and farm workers, to be paid
from Mr. Brown's huge budget surplus. In return for the fact that this is
taxpayers' money, it should be used to finance conservation and amenity work in
rural areas, to be planned parish by parish in conjunction with the
conservation and environmental bodies which already operate on a
county-by-county basis. The BNP believes that this must be done, but equally
that urban taxpayers are fully entitled to get something worthwhile for their
money. In a country where people have voted with their feet by joining bodies
like the National Trust and RSPB in far greater numbers than political parties
or any other institutions, projects to improve the environment and help
wildlife are the obvious choice.
Lest the cost of this fourth item be thought too high, let us look at the
current infection level (12/3/01) of just under 200 confirmed cases nationwide.
Take an average of a farmer and three workers, producing a monthly salary/wage
bill of (less than) £4,000, times by six months, times by 200. This would work
out at a little under £5 million.
To put this into perspective, it costs this country a net payment of £1.8
million to remain in the EU. In other words, we could pay to safeguard the jobs
and livelihoods of all the farmers and farm workers directly affected to date
for a whole six months for the price of being in the EU for about
two-and-a-half HOURS! Even after a ten-fold increase in the tragedy, this
compensation/rural rebuilding package would only cost a little more than a
single day's contribution to the EU. For the Government to pretend that we
can't afford this is equivalent to saying that Britain can't afford to have the
extra day in a leap year any more! It's not a question of money, it's a
question of whether or not Blair, Brown and Co are willing to do what it will
take to preserve the fabric of rural Britain!
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Huw
Huw
Huw
"Huw" <huw.willi...@farmline.com> wrote in message
news:98m6dj$jsr$1...@soap.pipex.net...
> Bring back the bikers walkers and pagans. All is forgiven.
>
> Huw
>
>
One virus received already. Wonder where that came from?
Huw
Jim Webster
Huw wrote in message <98m6dj$jsr$1...@soap.pipex.net>...
>Bring back the bikers walkers and pagans. All is forgiven.
Hey, the pagans have always been great to have about, the bikers also got
dragged in by a troll, and appart from one poor devil who got caught in a
discussion about push bikes they seem to have made their excuses and left
Some of the walkers have been interesting
we could do with more pagans at the moment.
Jim Webster
We worship the inexorable god known as Dangott.
Strangers are automatically heretics, and so are fed to the sacred apes.
>Huw
>
>
Huw
"Jim Webster" <Jim.W...@new.address.to.avoid.harassment> wrote in
message news:98mace$m7b$8...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Huw wrote in message <98m6dj$jsr$1...@soap.pipex.net>...
> >Bring back the bikers walkers and pagans. All is forgiven.
>
>
> Hey, the pagans have always been great to have about, the bikers
also got
> dragged in by a troll, and appart from one poor devil who got caught
in a
> discussion about push bikes they seem to have made their excuses and
left
>
> Some of the walkers have been interesting
>
>
> we could do with more pagans at the moment.
>
> Jim Webster
Well now we can have a nice rounded discussion since we have the BNP.
Some of the policies make sense to many here though. Notice that the
vaccination policy agrees with Dr Miller and some others. I wouldn't
argue with one or two policies either.
Unfortunately about 10 minutes after posting my message I received a
virus attachment which is rather a coincidence even if I did not say
whether I agreed with the original poster.
Huw
sraw...@cix.compulink.co.uk
wrote:
> Foot-and-mouth - New Labour's 'final solution' to the Farming Question
I received this missive at 23.09 after a beer and a very large Jameson,
took one look and wondered, "is it worth reading in the morning?"
Answers on a postcard.......
Steve Rawlings
Anarchist's R'Us
matthew.wright7
the BNP let them please note that whatever problem we are struggling with in
rural communities and even if a small number of their points are right
(cribbed from others) I do NOT believe their stirring is welcome. I would
rather whoever moderates this news group looked out for this and considered
blocking these anonymous posts from extremist groups like BNP and animal
rights groups stirring things. In this perspective I also hope that it is
strongly noted by the moderator that groups like BNP (or whoever posted it
and it could be an AR group) are trying to imply association with legitimate
rural organisations by posting in this way. I am sure this is absolutely not
welcome amongst our bodies. It is also not welcome and at a time when rural
areas are in crisis.
Matthew
Y <y...@somehost.somedomain> wrote in message
news:3aae9...@goliath.newsfeeds.com...
matthew.wright7
the BNP let them please note that whatever problem we are struggling with in
I do NOT believe their stirring is welcome. I would
rather whoever moderates this news group looked out for this and considered
blocking these anonymous posts from extremist groups like BNP and animal
rights groups stirring things. In this perspective I also hope that it is
and it could be an AR group) are trying to imply association with legitimate
smutty fingers on this). I am sure this is absolutely not
welcome amongst our bodies. It is also not welcome at a time when rural
areas are in crisis.
Matthew
Y <y...@somehost.somedomain> wrote in message
news:3aae9...@goliath.newsfeeds.com...
David Aldred
matthew.wright7 <matthew...@ntlworld.com> writes
In message <enIr6.900$Ns2....@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
matthew.wright7 <matthew...@ntlworld.com> writes
>I would rather whoever moderates this news group looked out for this
and >considered blocking these anonymous posts from extremist groups
like >BNP and animal rights groups stirring things
The group isn't moderated. If it was, the article would in all
probability have fallen foul of moderation rules (most moderated groups
reject articles with demonstrably forged headers).
Of course, the fact that the author feels it necessary to forge headers
to avoid identification probably says all we need to know about the
credibility of the post anyway. I'm sure many farmers on this group
have quite enough bovine excrement in their yards already without
needing any additions from the BNP.
--
------------------ -------------------------
|\avid Aldred / Da...@aldred.demon.co.uk \ Nottingham, England
|/ --------------------------------
Jim Webster
Huw wrote in message <98mash$lh3$1...@soap.pipex.net>...
>Unfortunately about 10 minutes after posting my message I received a
>virus attachment which is rather a coincidence even if I did not say
>whether I agreed with the original poster.
>
given the rarity most people ever recieve viral attachments I doubt very
much whether co-incidence has anything to do with it
Y
I think your missing the point a bit here. What you are supposed to do is
either disagree, agree with or simply ignore what we say. You must be very
unsure of your own position if you wish to see blanket censorship of anything
you not agree with?
If you don't like free speech then disconnect your modem and absorb something
nice, safe and controlled like the BBC news.
We have had plenty of good responses from farmers and country folk who really
do appreciate the fact that we are listening to their problems.
Accept it, the BNP are slowly becoming more and more appealing to rural
communities and there is nothing that people like you can do about it now that
you can no longer hide behind your iron curtain of political correctness.
In article <enIr6.900$Ns2....@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
matthew...@ntlworld.com says...
>
>I wonder who really posted this message? One things for certain if it was
>the BNP let them please note that whatever problem we are struggling with in
>rural communities and even if a very small number of their points are right
>I do NOT believe their stirring is welcome. I would
>rather whoever moderates this news group looked out for this and considered
>blocking these anonymous posts from extremist groups like BNP and animal
>rights groups stirring things. In this perspective I also hope that it is
>strongly noted by the moderator that groups like BNP (or whoever posted it -
>and it could be an AR group) are trying to imply association with legitimate
>rural organisations by posting in this way (there might even be Millbanks
>smutty fingers on this). I am sure this is absolutely not
>welcome amongst our bodies. It is also not welcome at a time when rural
>areas are in crisis.
>
>Matthew
>
>Y <y...@somehost.somedomain> wrote in message
>news:3aae9...@goliath.newsfeeds.com...
>> Foot-and-mouth - New Labour's 'final solution' to the Farming Question
>>
>>
>
>
>
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
Huw
"Y" <y...@somehost.somedomain> wrote in message
>
> I think your missing the point a bit here. What you are supposed to
do is
> either disagree, agree with or simply ignore what we say.
We can do what we like surely, as we are not censored or managed in
any way.
Huw
Denis F
>Accept it, the BNP are slowly becoming more and more appealing to rural
>communities
Bullshit............
--
denis
Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils.
Oz
>
>I think your missing the point a bit here. What you are supposed to do is
>either disagree, agree with or simply ignore what we say. You must be very
>unsure of your own position if you wish to see blanket censorship of anything
>you not agree with?
>If you don't like free speech then disconnect your modem and absorb something
>nice, safe and controlled like the BBC news.
>We have had plenty of good responses from farmers and country folk who really
>do appreciate the fact that we are listening to their problems.
>Accept it, the BNP are slowly becoming more and more appealing to rural
>communities and there is nothing that people like you can do about it now that
>you can no longer hide behind your iron curtain of political correctness.
Bletch.
--
Oz
Jim Webster
Y wrote in message <3aaf7...@news.newsfeeds.com>...
>nothing of interest
just remember I handle sh*t with a shovel,
I don't debate with it
David G. Bell
<tn2vatcjnh4vvlrgr...@4ax.com>
bedfor...@yahoo.com "Denis F" wrote:
> On 14 Mar 2001 07:53:24 -0600, Y wrote:
>
> >Accept it, the BNP are slowly becoming more and more appealing to rural
> >communities
>
> Bullshit............
England for the English!
Angles and Saxons Go Home!
--
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.
David G. Bell
<enIr6.900$Ns2....@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>
matthew...@ntlworld.com "matthew.wright7" wrote:
> I wonder who really posted this message? One things for certain if it was
> the BNP let them please note that whatever problem we are struggling with in
> rural communities and even if a very small number of their points are right
> I do NOT believe their stirring is welcome. I would
> rather whoever moderates this news group looked out for this and considered
> blocking these anonymous posts from extremist groups like BNP and animal
> rights groups stirring things. In this perspective I also hope that it is
> strongly noted by the moderator that groups like BNP (or whoever posted it -
> and it could be an AR group) are trying to imply association with legitimate
> rural organisations by posting in this way (there might even be Millbanks
> smutty fingers on this). I am sure this is absolutely not
> welcome amongst our bodies. It is also not welcome at a time when rural
> areas are in crisis.
The main weapon of the moderator this newsgroup is Oz and an unswerving
devotion to Relena Peacecraft...
Sorry.
The main weapons of the moderator of this newsgroups are Oz, an
unswerving devotion to Relena Peacecraft, and a set of Mobile Suit
Gundams that can really kick...
oh bugger!
Let's not have a moderator. They're not as much fun and besides, Kiyoni
needs a shoulder to cry on....
Y
>Accept it, the BNP are slowly becoming more and
> more appealing to rural communities
Bullshit............
--
denis
It's happening before your eyes Denis.
First hostility, then ridicule, then acceptance.
Alistair
"David G. Bell" <db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk> wrote
> England for the English!
>
> Angles and Saxons Go Home!
>
C'mon. What kind of state would you be in without all those Scottish
politicians running the country.
Full employment...low interest rates....fmd under control....Crossroads
back... :-)
Alistair
Jim Webster
"David G. Bell" wrote in message
<20010314.16...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk>...
I'm still smarting from getting busted all the way down to private second
class after taking my Gundam to town:-((
but how about F&M for an episode of the Bubble Gum Crisis?
Jim Webster
We worship the inexorable god known as Dangott.
Strangers are automatically heretics, and so are fed to the sacred apes.
>
J B
> Unfortunately about 10 minutes after posting my message I received a
> virus attachment
Was it the 'haha sexy fun' one? From someone at tesco.net?
That's what I got.
--
J B
J B
>
> I think your missing the point a bit here. What you are supposed to do
is
> either disagree, agree with or simply ignore what we say.
What? You expected us to _read_ all that stuff, as well as the several
hundred other posts?
--
J B
Denis F
>It's happening before your eyes Denis.
>First hostility, then ridicule, then acceptance.
Sorry Y, you'll never get me past hostility and ridicule
--
denis
Huw
"J B" <i.don...@my.email.address> wrote in message
news:D9Rr6.3506$Ns2.2...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Did you get it after posting here?
My attachment was in a message with no title and no sender.
Huw
swroot
> Y wrote in message <3aaf7...@news.newsfeeds.com>...
> >nothing of interest
>
> just remember I handle sh*t with a shovel,
>
> I don't debate with it
[applause]
regards
sarah
--
To be in process of change is not an evil, any more than
to be the product of change is a good.
Jim Webster
Y wrote in message <3aafc...@goliath2.newsfeeds.com>...
>On 14 Mar 2001 07:53:24 -0600, Y wrote:
>
>>Accept it, the BNP are slowly becoming more and
>> more appealing to rural communities
>
>Bullshit............
>--
>denis
>
>It's happening before your eyes Denis.
>First hostility, then ridicule, then acceptance.
just wondered if you could recommend a good house painter?
Jim Webster
We worship the inexorable god known as Dangott.
Strangers are automatically heretics, and so are fed to the sacred apes.
sraw...@cix.compulink.co.uk
i.don...@my.email.address (J B) wrote:
>
> Was it the 'haha sexy fun' one? From someone at tesco.net?
>
> That's what I got.
Got the email, but not the fun :-(
Steve Rawlings
www.dexterbeef.co.uk
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> J B wrote on Thu, 15 Mar 2001
> >"Huw" <huw.willi...@farmline.com> wrote in message
> >news:98oq7l$n9$1...@soap.pipex.net...
> >>
> >> Did you get it after posting here?
> >
> >Who knows?
> >
> >> My attachment was in a message with no title and no sender.
> >
> >Hmm ........ not even in the 'message source?
>
> Virus: "Apologies" see thread on demon.tech.pc
>
> I'm sure nobody here opens any attachments and certainly never from an
> unknown sender.
>
I open them by double clicking on them...
But then I don't have an Intel or Microsoft based PC so viruses for
those can do absolutely nothing on my machine.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a patchwork of bygones: http://powys.org
Huw
"J B" <i.don...@my.email.address> wrote in message
> >
> > Did you get it after posting here?
>
>
> > My attachment was in a message with no title and no sender.
>
Can't remember as it was immediately kicked off my machine with
maximum prejudice.
Huw
J B
>
> Did you get it after posting here?
Who knows?
> My attachment was in a message with no title and no sender.
Hmm ........ not even in the 'message source?
--
J B
Oz
Virus: "Apologies" see thread on demon.tech.pc
I'm sure nobody here opens any attachments and certainly never from an
unknown sender.
--
Oz
J B
news:KeDXKnAM$Ps6...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
> Virus: "Apologies" see thread on demon.tech.pc
No time to go there, sorry!
Ant chance of a *brief* explanation?
--
J B
David Pickersgill
>
> "J B" <i.don...@my.email.address> wrote in message
> news:i14s6.4389$y47.8...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> > "Huw" <huw.willi...@farmline.com> wrote in message
> > news:98oq7l$n9$1...@soap.pipex.net...
> > >
> > > Did you get it after posting here?
> >
> > Who knows?
> >
> > > My attachment was in a message with no title and no sender.
> >
There are a lot of these floating around at the moment. Another ng has also
mentioned a plague of them. Sometimes its just an empty message sometimes
with attachment.
--
David
www.farm-direct.co.uk
local and national farmgate sales and farming information.
Oz
Unfortunately right now I find I have little time for most of the other
groups I usually write to for some reason.
IIRC it was a worm.
--
Oz
Denis F
>There are a lot of these floating around at the moment. Another ng has also
>mentioned a plague of them. Sometimes its just an empty message sometimes
>with attachment.
I had one like that, no attachement just an empty message,
sent to an address I rarely use!
Jeff Taylor
<t...@powys.org> wrote:
> I open them by double clicking on them...
>
> But then I don't have an Intel or Microsoft based PC so viruses for
> those can do absolutely nothing on my machine.
Probably not a good habit to get into. Even though Risc-OS is unlikely
to ever become popular enough to attract the attention of virus writers
you may find yourself using a different machine some time.
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Jeff Taylor <00...@clearview.cix.co.uk> wrote:
And just to prove a point some plonker yesterday sent me a virus from
"Remote Mail Delivery System" with the name LKIEELLK.EXE. They plonk
because they have not understood that computer viruses are similar to
animal viruses: they only affect certain species - and my species is
not cloven-footed!
Anyhow, to ensure I can survive unscathed for a few more years, I have
ordered another RISC OS based machine. Would that the same could be so
easily done for animals.