Jiglu: Farmtalking: Discussion: Re: Bobby Waugh

Originally from: Farmtalking

Author wrote:
Author wrote: Bobby Waugh,Cheale Meats and Darlington Mart denied he was
involved in any transactions.
Well to paraphrase Mandy Rice-Davies ever so slightly "they would say that
wouldn't they" since it hardly reflects well on any of them if he was.

I admit you may have a point there but at the same time the very fact that you make it seems to indicate they are 'damned if they do and damned if they don't' as it seems was dear Mandy all those years ago!

My whole point was that in Waugh's case we should remove the Foot and Mouth
element from the discussion

Perhaps we should, but it's a difficult thing to do especially when although not charged with 'starting FMD' it has been widely alleged that it started on his farm and was repeated by the Sunday Mirror this week.

and consider him merely as someone who treated

the animals in his care abysmally and to consider whether, under those
circumstances, he is someone worthy of support to the point of exoneration.

AFAIK no one is trying to 'exonerate' Bobby Waugh. I have repeatedly stated my personal stance concerning animal cruelty and that I have no reservations with regard to the verdict and his sentance insofar as the information I have received to date.

I have a friend who supplies Marks and Spencers and Waitrose and representatives
from these two companies will turn up unannounced at his premises to check
that he conforms to their acceptable standards, an arrangement he is more
than to comply with and one which he wishes were extended further still
throughout the industry. It strikes me that Waugh was able to continue
for as long as he did because either (a) Cheale Meats never carried out
similar inspections or (b) if they did they were quite happy with what
they saw. In such circumstances is it therefore likely that their MD
is going to acknowledge to a Sunday Mirror journalist that Waugh was acting
as their agent in the purchase of pigs at Darlington Market.

You could be absolutely correct on all these counts but I notice you make no mention of the fact that Bobby Waugh's farm was also regularly inspected for licensing purposes. Is it not possible that MAFF/DEFRA and Trading Standards also failed in their duty?

Other industries police themselves (the racing fraternity going as far as
"warning off" so I understand) and it ill behoves any of the farming community
not to do the same if they are to help repair public confidence which still
remains at an all time low.

Tell me about it! The RCVS 'police themselves' too and failed miserably in their duty with regard to veterinary surgeons signing the 'A' forms for the slaughter of millions of healthy animals, which they admitted was a 'false certificate' for which a veterinary surgeon may be struck off the register.

Author wrote:
However, I see no reason why he should not be allowed to attend the marts
or local shows to meet with his friends and aquaintances or simply to see
what is going on around him in an environment he knows well. After all,
he no longer 'farms' but like most 'retired' farmers still takes an interest
and visits the mart following the habit of a lifetime.

And I suppose similarly if a teacher were convicted of paedophilia you would
see no problem with him hanging around schools idly chit-chatting and newsing
with fellow teachers and following the habit of a lifetime?

I think that bears no comparison whatsoever in this case!
The law is the law, although I admit it is frequently broken by many and when they are caught they are punished. The point I was making is that Bobby Waugh has been banned from keeping animals not from attending marts, etc. as his curfew allows.

As I understood it from 'Farming Today' Waugh was not banned from attending
marts because this was a case, the like of which Northumberland Trading
Standards had never faced before, ie this was a loophole they hadn't anticipated.
I further understood that they are currently taking legal advice on what
jurisdiction they have to extend the sentence to cover this aspect

If Trading Standards seek to persuade the Courts to extend his banning order that is up to them. However, I would imagine that his lawyers and various civil liberty organizations might consider such a measure too harsh and unecessary.

It is all a matter of striking the right and proper balance, something we human beings tend to find very difficult!

Author wrote:
Author wrote:
I agree entirely with Margot.
Waugh may not be in breach of the strikt terms f his sentence
by attending
Darlington market, but I think it reflects very badly on the market
organisers and inturn the farming comunity as a whole that thiey
allow this
man to set foot on the premises.
By welcoming Waugh 'back into the fold' in this way we give a
clear signal
to the public that farmers don't care about animal welfare and
even condone
Waugh's actions'
What was waugh doing at the mart?
As far as I understand the matter, Bobby Waugh has 'farmed' in the area
for many years. As a result he has regularly attended markets and shows
in much the same way as most farmers do. They are the places where
farmers> meet each other, very often become friends and enjoy a a chat
for a while.> Bobby Waugh is no different in this respect but has been
found guilty of
a crime and is serving his sentence. We like to think that most farmers
care very much about the welfare of their livestock, abhor cruelty and
consider the verdict in Bobby's case justified but we also know there
are> others just as guilty as Bobby Waugh who have not recieved such a high
media profile.
However, I see no reason why he should not be allowed to attend the
marts> or local shows to meet with his friends and aquaintances or simply
to see> what is going on around him in an environment he knows well.
After all,
he no longer 'farms' but like most 'retired' farmers still takes an interest
and visits the mart following the habit of a lifetime. If the Sunday Mirror
hadn't decided to 'make up' a story concerning his visit to the mart,
none> of us would have known.
As mr Jobson is such good friends with him then perhaps he could
clarify> > this issue.
Was he merely watching the proceedings as a bystander, or was
he in anyway
involved in organising the transaction taking place?
As reported by Bruce and published by Farmtalking last week, Bobby
Waugh,> Cheale Meats and Darlington Mart denied he was involved in any
transactions.
You say no one has attempted to 'deify' waugh, yet Jobson has
clearly chosen
to act as his apologist.
I think you are mistaken there, as I don't recall Bruce acting as an apologist
on behalf of Bobby Waugh at any time, merely reporting the facts of the
matter for our information.
This is entirely his own business, but I firmly believe that it
would serve
the interests of British farming best to distance ourselves as far as
possible from the odious Mr Waugh.
I can accept that many may feel as you do and wish to distance themselves>
not only from the likes of Bobby Waugh but from the whole FMD episode.
I frequently feel the same way myself!
However, I realise it is only because people such as Bruce Jobson, Roger
Windsor, William Neville, Aleyn Addey, Alicia Eykyn, Janet Bailey,
Nicola> Morris etc, etc, have taken the trouble not to distance themselves but
searched out the truth concerning the law, the science, the management
and the cost of this epdemic and then been kind enough to share their knowledge
with us, that perhaps we can help to ensure that not only will such
a disaster
not happen again.
The Government's introduction of a licensing system for farmers might do
something to ensure the prevention of low standards of animal welfare future?
I wonder! – I thought the inspections MAFF/DEFRA carried out at Bobby Waugh's
farm were supposed to do that, but obviously failed in this instance!
----- Original Message -----
From: <a href="mailto:<...>"><...></a>;
To: <a href="mailto:<...>"><...></a>;
Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 12:13 AM
Subject: Re: [farmtalking] Bobby Waugh
I have just recived the following message from Bruce for Margot –
Margot,
Try harder :-) Farming Today phoned two days
ago about the> > story. I've also heard it today. And I revealed
part of what had happened
last Saturday. Farmtalking broke the story first. TV networks,
radio and> > newspapers have also made contact this week and the
story is more complex
than you think, and even these media-outlets will not present
all the facts
involved. For legal reasons, I haven't either.

However, Darlington Mart is not an "auction mart" on a Wednesday. It's a
"collection centre". There is no buying or selling, animals from
various> > locations are delivered and then transported to their
destination. Farmers
book their own animals into the mart. Farming Today mentioned
that Bobby> > Waugh was acting as an "agent". I would suggest that
comment is incorrect.
No money changes hands, Cheale Meat set the price and Cheale Meats pay
Darlington Mart. And the Mart pays the farmers.

The terms of Bobby's sentence do not appear to restrict his
being able to
visit a mart, lean on a gate, see his friends, go to a horse-race, attend
the Royal Show or even attend the National Pig Fair. The judge
made the> > rulings, not me, you, Mick King, or a leading newspaper.
I don't know if> > such a ruling can even be imposed as this may
be impossible under British
and EU Law. But, if you have a complaint about the terms of the sentence,
write to the Judge:-)

Unfortunately, Jane, I'm not in a position to comment any
further. And I
hope that everyone appreciates the reasons.

Best wishes
Bruce
Author wrote:
I assume none of you listened to 'Farming Today' for
a rather more
clear-headed
view of what an objectionable character Waugh truly
is? > He was not
charged
with either starting or spreading FMD, but of failing to
notify that his
animals were infected with the virus. He was further
charged with
feeding
untreated swill, but by far the most serious charge was that
of cruelty
to his animals.
If you were to remove the whole foot and mouth issue from
the eqution
would
you seriously be happy defending the rights of a man
with a proven
record
of abuse of the animals supposedly in his care? Personally
I think> > these
attempts to deify him are nothing short of disgraceful and
his attempt
to cynically sidestep the Court's ruling by attending
Darlington Market
and elsewhere (under whatever guise he was purporting to
be operating)
contemptible. far from the Sunday Mirror journalist
overstepping the
mark, he has actually acted in the public interest since
I understand
Trading
Standards are now investigating whether or not Waugh can
be banned from
such attendances, something they would not have been aware
of without
this
investigation.
Author wrote:
Hi Jane, message to Bill for the message board
Bill,
Your enthusiasm for knowledge is greatly
appreciated! But I'm
writing
the book and cannot answer every question that
everybody wishes to> > know :-)
I haven't got the available time as I also write material
for various
long-established
contacts. I'm inundated with requests from press,
TV, radio and
interested
parties such as yourself – from all over the world,
not just the UK.
But "rubbish" means, paper, cardboard boxes, plastic,
etc. Friends,
neighbours
and contacts brought that kind of material from time
to time. Bobby
had
an officially approved "burning-tank" for disposal
of animal remains.
This therefore necessitated a regular supply of wood,
cardboard,
paper, etc.
Bill, I'll get Jane to send you an autographed copy
of the book!
Shouldn't
have put that – Jane will want one too!
Best wishes
Bruce
Author wrote:
Author wrote:
Jane,
Who is Bruce Jobson?
Bruce Jobson is a farmer and author/journalist.
He is currently
writing
a book concerning the recent FMD epidemic which
I understand will be
titled
'Waughtergate'.
He also attended the trial of Bobby Waugh and sent
daily reports
which can
be found on the 'News' page of Farmtalking.org
Did he or did he not say "1) The waste-heap had
rubbish, wood,
paper, boxes,
etc, everything, literally being dumped onto
it. It was a
permanently
smouldering ash-heap with bones, cutlery and
crockery also
present. Other
people also brought rubbish onto the premises
for disposal"
"smouldering ash-heap with bones"
Yes he did say this. However, I do not think there
is anything
particularly
unusual in this statement. Many farms have
semi-permanent bonfires
on their
premises. I imagine there may have been some
arrangement agreed> > > > with Bobby
Waugh and others, if they were also allowed to burn
rubbish on the
site as well.
"Other people also brought rubbish onto
the premises
for disposal"
Did the rubbish for disposal include bones,
carcasses or offal?
I'm afraid I don't know if that was the case.
Is this perhaps where the Government got the
idea of using
funeral pyres
instead of much safer burial?
Certainly not! The Government had thought of that
long before
FMD was confirmed
at Heddon on the Wall. They have admitted making
enquiries for
the supply
of timber etc in 2000 as part of their 'contingency
planning'. Jane
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit <a href="http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/farmtalking">http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/farmtalking</a>
To leave the group, email: <a href="...">...">...</a>