Jiglu: Farmtalking: Discussion: Re: Today''s Newcastle Journal

Originally from: coleen

I am sure I'm not alone in knowing people who made a small fortune in the clean up process. Some people even started their own little business here in Cumbria to meet the needs... what about the staff who gave up office jobs (from within Maff as it was then ) because they were going to be paid more money at Great Orton for killing sheep – healthy sheep at that (then some would earn in a year). From slaughterers to vets the gravy train was ever bountiful... everyone was raking it in.

In those early days of fmd farmers were being advised to get their pedigree stock valued by a 'specialist valuer' The Government wanted no hick -ups in it's slaughter programme. They dangled more money in front of farmers then some had seen for a very long time if ever. If you were about to loose your living – would you refuse what was being offered. No one was worried or asking questions then – not the folks in power anyway – those that were asking questions i.e. the farmers, small holders, pet owners business owners were all being ignored.

I also understand that tons and tons of equipment was left at the site in Longtown all brand new and bought for what reason – to kill healthy animals) of which Landfill sites had to be then found and paid for.

The only reason that the Tax Payer is having to pay for any of this – is because of stupid incompetence and ignorance. Perhaps the tax payer should be made aware that NO lessons have been learned and he or she might well have to foot the bill the next time round...

Coleen

----- Original Message -----
From: ...
Originally from: "maryatwarmwell" <...>
To: <...>
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 5:10 PM
Subject: Re: [farmtalking] Today's Newcastle Journal
I have just received this from the National Foot and Mouth Group. It puts
all these costs clearly in perspective: I wish the newspapers could grasp
it.
http://www.warmwell.com
"Untested, unvalidated and unproven methods of control" were what led to
spiralling costs.
The National Foot and Mouth Group sends this:
The real reason why the costs of the 2001 FMD outbreak spiralled out of
control was not because of over-inflated valuations, and excessive
cleansing
and disinfection costs – though in some cases both were contributory
factors, it was because of the adoption of untested, unvalidated and
unproven methods of control. These led to millions of healthy animals
being
killed and all these animals incurred further compensation costs.
The pre-emptive slaughter policy, which resulted in the contiguous and
fire-break culls, meant that literally millions of healthy animals were
slaughtered that need never have been culled. All these animals had to be
paid for, and, in addition, all the costs of slaughter, transportation and
disposal also had to be met.
Never before had pre-emptive slaughter been used to control FMD – and
according to the scientific papers that have now emerged – it did not
assist
in controlling the disease. If anything, the divergence of resources to
the
mass extermination of healthy animals actually resulted in infected
premises
not being slaughtered as quickly as they should have been.
We know now how few premises actually had the disease confirmed. For
example, in Wigtownshire, only 2 premises were laboratory confirmed as
having FMD – but 219 farms were culled.
In Gloucestershire, 326 farms were culled – but only on 13 were FMD
confirmed in laboratory testing. The same ratios occurred in many counties
across the UK.
At the Great Orton burial pit – where nearly 1/2 a million sheep were
slaughtered, yet only 1 farm had FMD identified. Not only did the 1/2
million sheep require compensation being paid to the farmers, but also
incurred massive costs in digging the pits, employing slaughters teams,
and
transporters. And now the site requires on-going expensive maintenance as
the unlined pits leach gallons of toxins which in turn require treatment –
and will do so for many years to come.
Unless and until this crucial aspect of the 2001 epidemic is fully
scrutinised and evaluated neither the NAO or the Public Accounts Select
Committee will be able to determine how the costs of 2001 arose, and
whether
the UK taxpayer has received good value for the expenditure of his £3bn.
How much did the contiguous culls, the firebreak culls and the
pre-emptive
slaughter actually cost? What was the cost of compensation, of slaughter,
of
transportation and of disposal of all these animals. And how much has it
cost in remedial site work, or costing in ongoing maintenance. We must
have
answers. It seems as far as the EU is concerned we have not had value for
our tax pounds. Surely it is the purpose of the NAO and Public Accounts
Select Committee to now address this.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Greenhill" <...>
To: <...>
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: [farmtalking] Today's Newcastle Journal
I would concur with this view. Most organisations stepped in to help
resolve
a worsening situation and the last thing on their minds was the question
of
payment. Most thought (as did my company) that MAFF/Defra would "see us
OK"
Some hope!
In terms of cleaning operations, there seemed to be excessive cleaning and
that meant the bills increased. If time/rates/quality of cleaning were not
checked, the obvious will happen: it did.
The requirement for livestock valuers was to assess "market value" on
that
day. Naturally, there will be some differences but excessive variances
should have been challenged quickly. My valuers stuck to the book and
walked
away if it was suggested that the values were higher than they considerd
right. But it cannot be overlooked that farmers were in deep distress over
losing what amounted to their life`s work and it is only natural for them
to
think the stock is worth a lot more than the current market value.
We were working in unreal conditions for endless days (and often nights).
My
company was checked by the EU Commission`s auditors and they found not one
case of excessive valuation. There is no doubt, however, that elsewhere
there were some cases which required a complete rescrutiny.
We have bills outstanding for more than 41 months. This is a burden on a
small company which has been almost impossible to bear.
PG
----- Original Message -----
From: <...>
To: <...>
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 1:23 AM
Subject: Re: [farmtalking] Today's Newcastle Journal
'Your £1.4bn up in smoke'
This was featured on Border News Wednesday as well with NFU rep arguing
the
case that stock were not over-valued but the clean up-- where the
goalposts
were constantly changed by Gov staff, could well be where money was
wasted.
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/farmtalking
To leave the group, email: ...
Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D774210&mid%3D10236
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/farmtalking
To leave the group, email: ...
Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D774210&mid%3D10241
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/farmtalking
To leave the group, email: ...
Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D774210&mid%3D10242