Re: Bobby Waugh's Trial - Bruce Jobson reports.

18 messages

Originally from: and

Several could not believe what they were hearing and everyone was stunned at the inference of using food from Chinese restaurants. Bobby had not collected or fed Chinese swill and Judge Prowse's comment was made all the more incredible by the fact that during 2001, the Government had compensated the local Chinese community to the sum of £20,000. Several hardened journalists were stunned.

The thing that stuns me is that you are attempting to defend this man's actions. It literally beggars belief. I would remind you that Waugh's failure to notify MAFF that his pigs had FMD contributed greatly to the extent of the epidemic.

Whilst he should not be made a scape goat for the incompetence of MAFF, for which he was not responsible, we should not forget that he WAS responsible for the welfare of his animals, which he woefully neglected, he also had a responsibility to report any notifiable disease. He may not have recognised FMD, very few have ever seen it first hand, but the effects of FMD on pigs is very severe, he should have recognised that something was wrong. The evidence of the expert witness seemed to be that there were so many lame pigs as a matter of course on the farm, that this made it more difficult to spot FMD, well that's alright then.

I also view it as somewhat hypocritical to vilify the govt for their inaction to control imports to this country because of the risk of FMD, then defend the reckless and stupid actions of a man who fed untreated swill to his pigs, nearly every case of FMD in the last century was eventually traced back to pigs fed on swill.

Dr Paul Kitchen went to the farm and saw the pigs with his own eyes, if he says they had been infected for two weeks then that's good enough for me, good lord, when he said the contiguous cull was unneccessary, you were treating his every word as gospel, it seems a little disengenuous to start doubting him now.

Please don't take my comments personally, i just feel that the tone of the whole 'bobby waugh is innocent ' campagn is a tad ill advised.

The graphic video footage that has been aired on television tonight was taken on Saturday 24th February. In his own defence, Bobby stated that his pigs were "desperate" by that day. However, on Friday 23rd, MAFF had used Bobby's sawdust to make a disinfectant mat across the road and prevented him from bedding up his pigs. The pigs had been "bled" for analysis, dragged through the pens and were covered in pig-muck.

The pigs had been fed unprocessed swill on Friday evening on the direction of Jim Dring – and no one criticises him on that in the circumstances – but the following day – Saturday – the video was taken showing the pigs covered in muck, "desperate" and unprocessed swill left lying in the troughs. The swill was undoubtedly left in the troughs because the pigs weren't used to eating uncooked swill. And any person that has worked with farm animals realises that you cannot stop, chop and change diets. Animals loose weight. And Bobby was in the business of fattening pigs.

However, the video taken on 24th February, did not reflect the welfare and conditions of the animals on Thursday 22nd February. The video gave a false or worse, impression of what conditions were like on Burnside Farm at the time of the alleged offence.

Many thanks for all the e-mails, phone calls and messages received today. And many stunned ones, since the verdict!

Bobby will now be assessing his options with his legal team and thanks everyone for their messages of support.

Best wishes
Bruce

—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: ...

Originally from: Farmtalking

Bruce Jobson reports on the verdict

The verdict of the Bobby Waugh trial was delivered today at Bedlington Magistrates Court.

It is not my place to pass judgement upon the wisdom of Judge Prowse on his ruling. However, when giving his ruling, there appeared to be not only several inaccuracies contained within his ruling but also several inconsistencies.

That opinion was shared by many members of the press who were gathered at the court. It should be said, that some of the journalists who expressed this opinion had been in attendance at Bedlington on a regular basis. And to be fair to those journalists, they had remained totally objective throughout the trial.

Several could not believe what they were hearing and everyone was stunned at the inference of using food from Chinese restaurants. Bobby had not collected or fed Chinese swill and Judge Prowse's comment was made all the more incredible by the fact that during 2001, the Government had compensated the local Chinese community to the sum of £20,000. Several hardened journalists were stunned.

Many thanks for all the e-mails, phone calls and messages received today. And many stunned ones, since the verdict!

Bobby will now be assessing his options with his legal team and thanks everyone for their messages of support.

Best wishes
Bruce

Originally from: Joyce

How can you be sure this statement is true in the light of the past year's experiences? Joyce

Originally from: Farmtalking

I'm none too sure there is a 'Bobby Waugh is innocent campaign'!

Bruce was kind enough to attend Court all day, every day and send us his reports.

I don't think anyone who contributes to this board would condone animal cruelty or neglect. We have seen a great deal of it during the past months, much of which to our utter despair, caused by Government policy.

From: ...

Originally from reading the reports I understand the conditions in which Bobby Waugh's kept his pigs were perhaps not the ideal.

Nevertheless, many farmers house pigs in the same way and I would guess that the industry having been depressed for some time, they may not have been able to afford the installation of slats and or alternative and better methods of housing that are recommended.

From: ...

Originally from the evidence, Bobby Waugh's farm and the condition of his livestock regularly passed the Ministry Inspections, if we doubt their validity that is another matter that needs attention.

We may not approve of feeding processed swill to pigs for many reasons, nevertheless, it has been 'legal' for some time and the collection service for waste food products provided to schools and other institutions, as well as restaurants/hotels etc, has been both common practice and useful. Neither of the above however, indicate that a more sensible method of feeding pigs and disposing of waste food products is not advisable and in the circumstances necessary.

As regards the condition of the his pigs suffering from FMD and your quote, "...the effects of FMD on pigs is very severe,.."

During the past months I have spoken to pig, cattle and sheep farmers and vets, who have told me the infected animals they were responsible for were suffering badly and they couldn't wait to put them out of their misery. I certainly believed them. At the same time, others have told me the infected livestock they were responsible for did not appear unwell and if infected at all were recovering or had done so, without any apparent ill effect. I certainly believed them too.

There is always a possibility that Bobby Waugh's pigs fell into the latter category and a great shame more research and notice of the effects caused and recovery from the virus, was not conducted during the recent epidemic.

The video footage shown on TV was filmed, as Bruce told us, on the 24th, when the pigs had not been 'bedded' the previous night and after the animals had been man-handled and 'bled'. Knowing how pigs unused to such treatment would behave, pathetic though it appeared, it came as no surprise to me and without very careful scrutiny cannot be taken as proof of anything good or bad.

Each of us will form our own opinion of Bobby Waugh's guilt or innocence on the evidence we have as reported in newspapers, on websites or seen on TV, but I for one, no longer believe all I read, see or am told. It takes a great deal to convince me of anything and even then I can always change my mind.

I am very grateful to Bruce for sending me his reports for publication on Farmtalking and this message board and also commend him for the friendship, kindness and the understanding he has shown towards Bobby Waugh.

All of us, Guilty or Innocent, need 'friends' like him and there is no doubt that if there had been more compassion, such as he demonstrates during last year, a great deal of animal and human suffering could have been avoided. Jane

Author wrote:
Several could not believe what they were hearing and everyone was stunned at
the inference of using food from Chinese restaurants. Bobby had not
collected or fed Chinese swill and Judge Prowse's comment was made all the
more incredible by the fact that during 2001, the Government had compensated
the local Chinese community to the sum of £20,000. Several hardened
journalists were stunned.
The thing that stuns me is that you are attempting to defend this man's
actions. It literally beggars belief. I would remind you that Waugh's
failure to notify MAFF that his pigs had FMD contributed greatly to the
extent of the epidemic.
Whilst he should not be made a scape goat for the incompetence of MAFF, for
which he was not responsible, we should not forget that he WAS responsible
for the welfare of his animals, which he woefully neglected, he also had a
responsibility to report any notifiable disease. He may not have recognised
FMD, very few have ever seen it first hand, but the effects of FMD on pigs
is very severe, he should have recognised that something was wrong. The
evidence of the expert witness seemed to be that there were so many lame
pigs as a matter of course on the farm, that this made it more difficult to
spot FMD, well that's alright then.
I also view it as somewhat hypocritical to vilify the govt for their
inaction to control imports to this country because of the risk of FMD, then
defend the reckless and stupid actions of a man who fed untreated swill to
his pigs, nearly every case of FMD in the last century was eventually traced
back to pigs fed on swill.
Dr Paul Kitchen went to the farm and saw the pigs with his own eyes, if he
says they had been infected for two weeks then that's good enough for me,
good lord, when he said the contiguous cull was unneccessary, you were
treating his every word as gospel, it seems a little disengenuous to start
doubting him now.
Please don't take my comments personally, i just feel that the tone of the
whole 'bobby waugh is innocent ' campagn is a tad ill advised.
The graphic video footage that has been aired on television tonight was
taken on Saturday 24th February. In his own defence, Bobby stated that his
pigs were "desperate" by that day. However, on Friday 23rd, MAFF had used
Bobby's sawdust to make a disinfectant mat across the road and prevented him
from bedding up his pigs. The pigs had been "bled" for analysis, dragged
through the pens and were covered in pig-muck.
The pigs had been fed unprocessed swill on Friday evening on the direction
of Jim Dring – and no one criticises him on that in the circumstances – but
the following day – Saturday – the video was taken showing the pigs covered
in muck, "desperate" and unprocessed swill left lying in the troughs. The
swill was undoubtedly left in the troughs because the pigs weren't used to
eating uncooked swill. And any person that has worked with farm animals
realises that you cannot stop, chop and change diets. Animals loose weight.
And Bobby was in the business of fattening pigs.
However, the video taken on 24th February, did not reflect the welfare and
conditions of the animals on Thursday 22nd February. The video gave a false
or worse, impression of what conditions were like on Burnside Farm at the
time of the alleged offence.
Many thanks for all the e-mails, phone calls and messages received today.
And many stunned ones, since the verdict!
Bobby will now be assessing his options with his legal team and thanks
everyone for their messages of support.
Best wishes
Bruce
--
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>

Originally from: Joyce

Well said Jane!
A friend phoned me today [has had nothing to do with FMD] but assumed from the press etc that Bobby Waugh was both guilty of cruelty and starting the epidemic. More spin I'm afraid and well timed as usual no doubt.
Joyce

Author wrote:
I'm none too sure there is a 'Bobby Waugh is innocent campaign'! Bruce was
kind enough to attend Court all day, every day and send us his reports.
I don't think anyone who contributes to this board would condone animal
cruelty or neglect. We have seen a great deal of it during the past months,
much of which to our utter despair, caused by Government policy.
From reading the reports I understand the conditions in which Bobby Waugh's
kept his pigs were perhaps not the ideal. Nevertheless, many farmers house
pigs in the same way and I would guess that the industry having been depressed
for some time, they may not have been able to afford the installation of
slats and or alternative and better methods of housing that are recommended.
From the evidence, Bobby Waugh's farm and the condition of his livestock
regularly passed the Ministry Inspections, if we doubt their validity that
is another matter that needs attention.
We may not approve of feeding processed swill to pigs for many reasons,
nevertheless, it has been 'legal' for some time and the collection service
for waste food products provided to schools and other institutions, as
well as restaurants/hotels etc, has been both common practice and useful.
Neither of the above however, indicate that a more sensible method of feeding
pigs and disposing of waste food products is not advisable and in the
circumstances necessary. As regards the condition of the his pigs suffering
from FMD and your quote, "...the effects of FMD on pigs is very severe,.."
During the past months I have spoken to pig, cattle and sheep farmers and
vets, who have told me the infected animals they were responsible for were
suffering badly and they couldn't wait to put them out of their misery.
I certainly believed them. At the same time, others have told me the infected
livestock they were responsible for did not appear unwell and if infected
at all were recovering or had done so, without any apparent ill effect.
I certainly believed them too.
There is always a possibility that Bobby Waugh's pigs fell into the latter
category and a great shame more research and notice of the effects caused
and recovery from the virus, was not conducted during the recent epidemic.
The video footage shown on TV was filmed, as Bruce told us, on the 24th,
when the pigs had not been 'bedded' the previous night and after the animals
had been man-handled and 'bled'. Knowing how pigs unused to such treatment
would behave, pathetic though it appeared, it came as no surprise to me
and without very careful scrutiny cannot be taken as proof of anything
good or bad.
Each of us will form our own opinion of Bobby Waugh's guilt or innocence
on the evidence we have as reported in newspapers, on websites or seen
on TV, but I for one, no longer believe all I read, see or am told. It
takes a great deal to convince me of anything and even then I can always
change my mind.
I am very grateful to Bruce for sending me his reports for publication on
Farmtalking and this message board and also commend him for the friendship,
kindness and the understanding he has shown towards Bobby Waugh.
All of us, Guilty or Innocent, need 'friends' like him and there is no doubt
that if there had been more compassion, such as he demonstrates during
last year, a great deal of animal and human suffering could have been avoided.Jane
Author wrote:
Several could not believe what they were hearing and everyone was stunned at
the inference of using food from Chinese restaurants. Bobby had not
collected or fed Chinese swill and Judge Prowse's comment was made
all the> more incredible by the fact that during 2001, the Government
had compensated
the local Chinese community to the sum of £20,000. Several hardened
journalists were stunned.
The thing that stuns me is that you are attempting to defend this man's
actions. It literally beggars belief. I would remind you that Waugh's
failure to notify MAFF that his pigs had FMD contributed greatly to the
extent of the epidemic.
Whilst he should not be made a scape goat for the incompetence of MAFF, for
which he was not responsible, we should not forget that he WAS responsible>
for the welfare of his animals, which he woefully neglected, he also had
a> responsibility to report any notifiable disease. He may not have
recognised
FMD, very few have ever seen it first hand, but the effects of FMD
on pigs> is very severe, he should have recognised that something was
wrong. The
evidence of the expert witness seemed to be that there were so many lame
pigs as a matter of course on the farm, that this made it more difficult to
spot FMD, well that's alright then.
I also view it as somewhat hypocritical to vilify the govt for their
inaction to control imports to this country because of the risk of FMD, then
defend the reckless and stupid actions of a man who fed untreated swill
to> his pigs, nearly every case of FMD in the last century was eventually traced
back to pigs fed on swill.
Dr Paul Kitchen went to the farm and saw the pigs with his own eyes, if he
says they had been infected for two weeks then that's good enough for
me,> good lord, when he said the contiguous cull was unneccessary, you were
treating his every word as gospel, it seems a little disengenuous to
start> doubting him now.
Please don't take my comments personally, i just feel that the tone
of the> whole 'bobby waugh is innocent ' campagn is a tad ill advised.
The graphic video footage that has been aired on television tonight was
taken on Saturday 24th February. In his own defence, Bobby stated that
his> pigs were "desperate" by that day. However, on Friday 23rd, MAFF
had used> Bobby's sawdust to make a disinfectant mat across the road
and prevented him
from bedding up his pigs. The pigs had been "bled" for analysis, dragged
through the pens and were covered in pig-muck.
The pigs had been fed unprocessed swill on Friday evening on the direction>
of Jim Dring – and no one criticises him on that in the circumstances – but
the following day – Saturday – the video was taken showing the pigs covered
in muck, "desperate" and unprocessed swill left lying in the troughs.
The> swill was undoubtedly left in the troughs because the pigs weren't
used to> eating uncooked swill. And any person that has worked with
farm animals
realises that you cannot stop, chop and change diets. Animals loose weight.
And Bobby was in the business of fattening pigs.
However, the video taken on 24th February, did not reflect the welfare
and> conditions of the animals on Thursday 22nd February. The video
gave a false
or worse, impression of what conditions were like on Burnside Farm
at the> time of the alleged offence.
Many thanks for all the e-mails, phone calls and messages received
today.> And many stunned ones, since the verdict!
Bobby will now be assessing his options with his legal team and thanks
everyone for their messages of support.
Best wishes
Bruce
--
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>

Originally from: Mary Critchley

I agree with what you say Jane. I haven't been aware of a "campaign" on these pages – just a scepticism born of the past 14 months and a wish to know the truth.

The evidence of the man Dring was odd. There could hardly have been a more damning witness than Jim Dring. But under cross examination his manner was shrill and defensive – which made me wonder. If they wanted to make the population at large feel revulsion against Waugh all they needed to do was show the pigs 48 hours after they had been roughly handled (as we know, it is very hard to take a sample from a pig...they object vigorously), deprived of the food they knew and left without bedding and dirty. Most people will believe what they are told and see what they are told to see.

I doubt whether we have heard the end of this. Having said that – I also agree with Andrew that it's very hard to discount the evidence of Paul Kitching. I wish there were a transcript somewhere so that we could see what he actually said. Do you know of one?

Best wishes

Mary

----- Original Message -----
From: ...
Originally from: <...>
To: <...>
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 6:53 PM
Subject: Re: [farmtalking] Bobby Waugh's Trial – Bruce Jobson reports.
I'm none too sure there is a 'Bobby Waugh is innocent campaign'!
Bruce was kind enough to attend Court all day, every day and send us his reports.
I don't think anyone who contributes to this board would condone animal cruelty or neglect. We have seen a great deal of it during the past months, much of which to our utter despair, caused by Government policy.
From: ...
Originally from reading the reports I understand the conditions in which Bobby Waugh's kept his pigs were perhaps not the ideal.
Nevertheless, many farmers house pigs in the same way and I would guess that the industry having been depressed for some time, they may not have been able to afford the installation of slats and or alternative and better methods of housing that are recommended.
From: ...
Originally from the evidence, Bobby Waugh's farm and the condition of his livestock regularly passed the Ministry Inspections, if we doubt their validity that is another matter that needs attention.
We may not approve of feeding processed swill to pigs for many reasons, nevertheless, it has been 'legal' for some time and the collection service for waste food products provided to schools and other institutions, as well as restaurants/hotels etc, has been both common practice and useful. Neither of the above however, indicate that a more sensible method of feeding pigs and disposing of waste food products is not advisable and in the circumstances necessary.
As regards the condition of the his pigs suffering from FMD and your quote, "...the effects of FMD on pigs is very severe,.."
During the past months I have spoken to pig, cattle and sheep farmers and vets, who have told me the infected animals they were responsible for were suffering badly and they couldn't wait to put them out of their misery. I certainly believed them. At the same time, others have told me the infected livestock they were responsible for did not appear unwell and if infected at all were recovering or had done so, without any apparent ill effect. I certainly believed them too.
There is always a possibility that Bobby Waugh's pigs fell into the latter category and a great shame more research and notice of the effects caused and recovery from the virus, was not conducted during the recent epidemic.
The video footage shown on TV was filmed, as Bruce told us, on the 24th, when the pigs had not been 'bedded' the previous night and after the animals had been man-handled and 'bled'. Knowing how pigs unused to such treatment would behave, pathetic though it appeared, it came as no surprise to me and without very careful scrutiny cannot be taken as proof of anything good or bad.
Each of us will form our own opinion of Bobby Waugh's guilt or innocence on the evidence we have as reported in newspapers, on websites or seen on TV, but I for one, no longer believe all I read, see or am told. It takes a great deal to convince me of anything and even then I can always change my mind.
I am very grateful to Bruce for sending me his reports for publication on Farmtalking and this message board and also commend him for the friendship, kindness and the understanding he has shown towards Bobby Waugh.
All of us, Guilty or Innocent, need 'friends' like him and there is no doubt that if there had been more compassion, such as he demonstrates during last year, a great deal of animal and human suffering could have been avoided. Jane
Author wrote:
Several could not believe what they were hearing and everyone was stunned
at
the inference of using food from Chinese restaurants. Bobby had not
collected or fed Chinese swill and Judge Prowse's comment was made all the
more incredible by the fact that during 2001, the Government had
compensated
the local Chinese community to the sum of £20,000. Several hardened
journalists were stunned.
The thing that stuns me is that you are attempting to defend this man's
actions. It literally beggars belief. I would remind you that Waugh's
failure to notify MAFF that his pigs had FMD contributed greatly to the
extent of the epidemic.
Whilst he should not be made a scape goat for the incompetence of MAFF,
for
which he was not responsible, we should not forget that he WAS responsible
for the welfare of his animals, which he woefully neglected, he also had a
responsibility to report any notifiable disease. He may not have
recognised
FMD, very few have ever seen it first hand, but the effects of FMD on pigs
is very severe, he should have recognised that something was wrong. The
evidence of the expert witness seemed to be that there were so many lame
pigs as a matter of course on the farm, that this made it more difficult
to
spot FMD, well that's alright then.
I also view it as somewhat hypocritical to vilify the govt for their
inaction to control imports to this country because of the risk of FMD,
then
defend the reckless and stupid actions of a man who fed untreated swill to
his pigs, nearly every case of FMD in the last century was eventually
traced
back to pigs fed on swill.
Dr Paul Kitchen went to the farm and saw the pigs with his own eyes, if
he
says they had been infected for two weeks then that's good enough for me,
good lord, when he said the contiguous cull was unneccessary, you were
treating his every word as gospel, it seems a little disengenuous to start
doubting him now.
Please don't take my comments personally, i just feel that the tone of the
whole 'bobby waugh is innocent ' campagn is a tad ill advised.
The graphic video footage that has been aired on television tonight was
taken on Saturday 24th February. In his own defence, Bobby stated that his
pigs were "desperate" by that day. However, on Friday 23rd, MAFF had used
Bobby's sawdust to make a disinfectant mat across the road and prevented
him
from bedding up his pigs. The pigs had been "bled" for analysis, dragged
through the pens and were covered in pig-muck.
The pigs had been fed unprocessed swill on Friday evening on the direction
of Jim Dring – and no one criticises him on that in the circumstances –
but
the following day – Saturday – the video was taken showing the pigs
covered
in muck, "desperate" and unprocessed swill left lying in the troughs. The
swill was undoubtedly left in the troughs because the pigs weren't used to
eating uncooked swill. And any person that has worked with farm animals
realises that you cannot stop, chop and change diets. Animals loose
weight.
And Bobby was in the business of fattening pigs.
However, the video taken on 24th February, did not reflect the welfare and
conditions of the animals on Thursday 22nd February. The video gave a
false
or worse, impression of what conditions were like on Burnside Farm at the
time of the alleged offence.
Many thanks for all the e-mails, phone calls and messages received today.
And many stunned ones, since the verdict!
Bobby will now be assessing his options with his legal team and thanks
everyone for their messages of support.
Best wishes
Bruce
--
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="...">...">farmtalking-unsubscrib
e@smartgroups.com</a>
—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: ...

Originally from: Farmtalking

Yes – I guess we will get a transcript in time and I've made inquiries and will let you know if and when it's available. Meanwhile I guess Bobby and his lawyers will be studying Judge Prowse's comments and as in every case, they may consider an appeal. Jane

Author wrote:
I agree with what you say Jane. I haven't been aware of a "campaign" on
these pages – just a scepticism born of the past 14 months and a wish to
know the truth.
The evidence of the man Dring was odd. There could hardly have been a more
damning witness than Jim Dring. But under cross examination his manner was
shrill and defensive – which made me wonder. If they wanted to make the
population at large feel revulsion against Waugh all they needed to do was
show the pigs 48 hours after they had been roughly handled (as we know, it
is very hard to take a sample from a pig...they object vigorously), deprived
of the food they knew and left without bedding and dirty. Most people will
believe what they are told and see what they are told to see.
I doubt whether we have heard the end of this. Having said that – I also
agree with Andrew that it's very hard to discount the evidence of Paul
Kitching. I wish there were a transcript somewhere so that we could see
what he actually said. Do you know of one?
Best wishes
Mary
----- Original Message -----
From: <a href="mailto:<...>"><...></a>;
To: <a href="mailto:<...>"><...></a>;
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 6:53 PM
Subject: Re: [farmtalking] Bobby Waugh's Trial – Bruce Jobson reports.
I'm none too sure there is a 'Bobby Waugh is innocent campaign'!
Bruce was kind enough to attend Court all day, every day and send us his
reports.
I don't think anyone who contributes to this board would condone animal
cruelty or neglect. We have seen a great deal of it during the past months,
much of which to our utter despair, caused by Government policy.
From reading the reports I understand the conditions in which Bobby Waugh's
kept his pigs were perhaps not the ideal.
Nevertheless, many farmers house pigs in the same way and I would guess that
the industry having been depressed for some time, they may not have been
able to afford the installation of slats and or alternative and better
methods of housing that are recommended.
From the evidence, Bobby Waugh's farm and the condition of his livestock
regularly passed the Ministry Inspections, if we doubt their validity that
is another matter that needs attention.
We may not approve of feeding processed swill to pigs for many reasons,
nevertheless, it has been 'legal' for some time and the collection service
for waste food products provided to schools and other institutions, as well
as restaurants/hotels etc, has been both common practice and useful. Neither
of the above however, indicate that a more sensible method of feeding pigs
and disposing of waste food products is not advisable and in the
circumstances necessary.
As regards the condition of the his pigs suffering from FMD and your quote,
"...the effects of FMD on pigs is very severe,.."
During the past months I have spoken to pig, cattle and sheep farmers and
vets, who have told me the infected animals they were responsible for were
suffering badly and they couldn't wait to put them out of their misery. I
certainly believed them. At the same time, others have told me the infected
livestock they were responsible for did not appear unwell and if infected at
all were recovering or had done so, without any apparent ill effect. I
certainly believed them too.
There is always a possibility that Bobby Waugh's pigs fell into the latter
category and a great shame more research and notice of the effects caused
and recovery from the virus, was not conducted during the recent epidemic.
The video footage shown on TV was filmed, as Bruce told us, on the 24th,
when the pigs had not been 'bedded' the previous night and after the animals
had been man-handled and 'bled'. Knowing how pigs unused to such treatment
would behave, pathetic though it appeared, it came as no surprise to me and
without very careful scrutiny cannot be taken as proof of anything good or
bad.
Each of us will form our own opinion of Bobby Waugh's guilt or innocence on
the evidence we have as reported in newspapers, on websites or seen on TV,
but I for one, no longer believe all I read, see or am told. It takes a
great deal to convince me of anything and even then I can always change my
mind.
I am very grateful to Bruce for sending me his reports for publication on
Farmtalking and this message board and also commend him for the friendship,
kindness and the understanding he has shown towards Bobby Waugh.
All of us, Guilty or Innocent, need 'friends' like him and there is no doubt
that if there had been more compassion, such as he demonstrates during last
year, a great deal of animal and human suffering could have been avoided.
Jane
Author wrote:
Several could not believe what they were hearing and everyone was stunned
at
the inference of using food from Chinese restaurants. Bobby had not
collected or fed Chinese swill and Judge Prowse's comment was made all the
more incredible by the fact that during 2001, the Government had
compensated
the local Chinese community to the sum of £20,000. Several hardened
journalists were stunned.
The thing that stuns me is that you are attempting to defend this man's
actions. It literally beggars belief. I would remind you that Waugh's
failure to notify MAFF that his pigs had FMD contributed greatly to the
extent of the epidemic.
Whilst he should not be made a scape goat for the incompetence of MAFF,
for
which he was not responsible, we should not forget that he WAS responsible
for the welfare of his animals, which he woefully neglected, he also had a
responsibility to report any notifiable disease. He may not have
recognised
FMD, very few have ever seen it first hand, but the effects of FMD on pigs
is very severe, he should have recognised that something was wrong. The
evidence of the expert witness seemed to be that there were so many lame
pigs as a matter of course on the farm, that this made it more difficult
to
spot FMD, well that's alright then.
I also view it as somewhat hypocritical to vilify the govt for their
inaction to control imports to this country because of the risk of FMD,
then
defend the reckless and stupid actions of a man who fed untreated swill to
his pigs, nearly every case of FMD in the last century was eventually
traced
back to pigs fed on swill.
Dr Paul Kitchen went to the farm and saw the pigs with his own eyes, if
he
says they had been infected for two weeks then that's good enough for me,
good lord, when he said the contiguous cull was unneccessary, you were
treating his every word as gospel, it seems a little disengenuous to start
doubting him now.
Please don't take my comments personally, i just feel that the tone of the
whole 'bobby waugh is innocent ' campagn is a tad ill advised.
The graphic video footage that has been aired on television tonight was
taken on Saturday 24th February. In his own defence, Bobby stated that his
pigs were "desperate" by that day. However, on Friday 23rd, MAFF had used
Bobby's sawdust to make a disinfectant mat across the road and prevented
him
from bedding up his pigs. The pigs had been "bled" for analysis, dragged
through the pens and were covered in pig-muck.
The pigs had been fed unprocessed swill on Friday evening on the direction
of Jim Dring – and no one criticises him on that in the circumstances –
but
the following day – Saturday – the video was taken showing the pigs
covered
in muck, "desperate" and unprocessed swill left lying in the troughs. The
swill was undoubtedly left in the troughs because the pigs weren't used to
eating uncooked swill. And any person that has worked with farm animals
realises that you cannot stop, chop and change diets. Animals loose
weight.
And Bobby was in the business of fattening pigs.
However, the video taken on 24th February, did not reflect the welfare and
conditions of the animals on Thursday 22nd February. The video gave a
false
or worse, impression of what conditions were like on Burnside Farm at the
time of the alleged offence.
Many thanks for all the e-mails, phone calls and messages received today.
And many stunned ones, since the verdict!
Bobby will now be assessing his options with his legal team and thanks
everyone for their messages of support.
Best wishes
Bruce
--
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="...">...">farmtalking-unsubscrib
<a href="mailto:e@smartgroups.com</a>">e@smartgroups.com</a></a>;
--
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>

Originally from: Farmtalking

I'm none too sure there is a 'Bobby Waugh is innocent campaign'!

#Forgive me, but the general tone of the posting did seem to suggest that you found Mr Waugh to have been hard done by at the very least.

That may be your interpretation but was certainly not my intention. Bruce Jobson sent me his reports of the trial and I published them verbatim for the information of members of the board.

From: ...

Originally from reading the reports I understand the conditions in which Bobby Waugh's kept his pigs were perhaps not the ideal.

#I'd say that was an understatement

That is your opinion and of course you are entitled to it!

#Though i would not condone intensive farming methods, most units are considerably better run then waugh's, The pigs may have little quality of life but at least they are, by neccesity, kept in good health. Waugh's business was primarily concerned with the disposal of catering waste, the welfare of the pigs was obviously of little concern to him. financial hardship is not an excuse for cruelty, if he couldn't afford to keep the pigs he shouldn't have had them, it's that simple.

From: ...

Originally from what you say, I imagine you have greater knowledge than I of Bobby Waugh's business, it's primary concern and his attitude to the welfare of the animals in his care. If what you say is true and verifiable, concerning all three, I would agree with you.

From: ...

Originally from the evidence, Bobby Waugh's farm and the condition of his livestock regularly passed the Ministry Inspections, if we doubt their validity that is another matter that needs attention.

#according to the reports of the trial, Dring had passed them as
'satisfactory', the minimum standard allowed, their inspection were merely to ascertain that waugh was obeying the regulations for swill feding, not whether he was observing even the minimum standards of animal welfare.

Again, if what you say is true regarding the 'satisfactory' pass and it did not include the standard of welfare for animals in his care, surely my suggestion that if we doubt their validity it is another matter that needs attention, is very valid.'

#There is nothing wrong with swill feeding provided the swill is boiled, witnesses at the trial clearly stated that waugh had cut corners and fed untreated waste. This is inexcusable.

Maybe I've missed something here but from the reports, I had understood that the only time unprocessed swill was fed to the pigs at Burnside, was on the instructions of the MAFF vet James Dring, the evening before they were slaughtered. I was/am not aware that any 'proof' of feeding unprocessed swill on other occasions at Burnside,was brought in evidence.

As regards the condition of the his pigs suffering from FMD and your quote, "...the effects of FMD on pigs is very severe,.." During the past months I have spoken to pig, cattle and sheep farmers and vets, who have told me the infected animals they were responsible for were suffering badly and they couldn't wait to put them out of their misery. I certainly believed them. At the same time, others have told me the infected livestock they were responsible for did not appear unwell and if infected at all were recovering or had done so, without any apparent ill effect. I certainly believed them too.

#Pigs incubate the virus faster and suffer the effects more severely than sheep. I very much doubt that any of the anecdotal evidence you have for the virus symptoms being less severe in some cases relates to pigs specifically. I cannot belive that even if the pigs were showing only mild symptoms, any competent stock man could have failed to notice that something was wrong, it beggars belief. The best defence Waugh could offer to this was from the elderly academic called as an expert witness, who said that there would be so many lame pigs anyway, infected ones would be hard to spot, hardly a defence IMO.

That you doubt my word concerning anecdotal evidence is your perogative. The fact that you cannot believe that any competant stockman could fail to notice something was wrong even if the pigs were only showing mild symptoms, is again your perogative and the fact that I can believe it, is mine. I would also highly regard and respect the expert evidence of 'the elderly academic' as you call him, that particular gentleman being highly esteemed by his peers and lesser mortals!

##Dr Kitching stated that the pigs were suffering from severe symptoms.

I have no quarrel with Dr Kitching's evidence and from his recent posting it seems, neither does Bruce Jobson.

#What about the evidence of eye witnesses, were they all liars and waugh the only one telling the truth?

I would hope not – but you never know! You seem to believe Bobby Waugh was lying but he could lso have been telling the truth.

#Yes, but it would be niaeve of us to think that Bruce did not have his own agenda here, he is writing a book on the subject.

Does the fact that he is writing a book prevent him from writing factual reports of the case on a daily basis? Or are you saying that because he is writing a book you don't believe his reports and consider those among us who choose to do so, are naive?

#Waugh had the right to a fair trial, and a chance to have his say. As far as i can see he got these, he had good legal representation and every chance to prove his innocence. He was found guilty, I believe this was the correct verdict.

O.K. Fine!

He was cruel to his animals.
He did feed untreated swill to his pigs, which is by far the most likely origin of the FMD epidemic, I have heard all the conspiracy theories and investigated them thourghly, and i have found no evidence whatsoever that 'EU plans to abolish British farming' or 'missing vials' exist anywhere outside the fevered imaginations of loonies like Greg Lance Watkins and Nick Green.

Again – as I've said before, we all make up our own minds as to what we believe or disbelieve and you have chosen to leave us in no doubt as to your own beliefs and that is fine too. What is perhaps not quite so 'tickety-boo' is your apparent conviction that you know what mine are. As I have yet to come to a firm conclusion on many of these matters, that is presumtious in the extreme!

FMD almost certainly did start on Waughs farm, the evidence is compelling, why look to unsubstantiated rumour? Had he acted honourably and reported it promptly, it could have been contained there, he didn't, the result was that nearly 10 million animals were slaughtered.

Here again you are expressing a personal opinion and I'm grateful for it, nevertheless others are not so convinced and have frequently said so too! Nor would I criticise them for doing so – as you know I'm a staunch supporter of freedom of speech!

Is it wrong that he should have to take responsiblility for his actions?

This question opens a whole new ball game! What do any of us mean by taking responsibility for our own actions? Is it simply admitting our guilt? Making recompense? Shouldering all the blame? Sharing the guilt with others complicit in our actions? These and many more questions will have to wait for another day as I'm already late for a rare excursion from home! Best wishes – Jane

_______________________________________________________

Established 10th March 2001
Visit the 'Farm-talking' web site at:
<A HREF="http://www.farmtalking.com">FARMTALKING.org</A>
For Information, Help and Advice, Your Legal Rights and the Law
For Farmers, their families and others affected by the FMD crisis in the U.K. Find out all you need to know about life in the Countryside today
What's on! -Links – Articles – News – Message Board!
"Farmtalking"
Scottish Charity No: SCO32660
Help-lines: 01361–850282/850680
"You're welcome!"


* This message has been edited by Farmtalking on 01 Jun 2002 23:29:55 *

Originally from: and

----- Original Message -----
From: ...
Originally from: <...>
To: <...>
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 6:53 PM
Subject: Re: [farmtalking] Bobby Waugh's Trial – Bruce Jobson reports.
I'm none too sure there is a 'Bobby Waugh is innocent campaign'!
#Forgive me, but the general tone of the posting did seem to suggest that you found Mr Waugh to have been hard done by at the very least.
.
From: ...
Originally from reading the reports I understand the conditions in which Bobby Waugh's kept his pigs were perhaps not the ideal.
#I'd say that was an understatement
Nevertheless, many farmers house pigs in the same way and I would guess that the industry having been depressed for some time, they may not have been able to afford the installation of slats and or alternative and better methods of housing that are recommended.
#Though i would not condone intensive farming methods, most units are considerably better run then waugh's, The pigs may have little quality of life but at least they are, by neccesity, kept in good health. Waugh's business was primarily concerned with the disposal of catering waste, the welfare of the pigs was obviously of little concern to him. financial hardship is not an excuse for cruelty, if he couldn't afford to keep the pigs he shouldn't have had them, it's that simple.
From: ...
Originally from the evidence, Bobby Waugh's farm and the condition of his livestock regularly passed the Ministry Inspections, if we doubt their validity that is another matter that needs attention.
#according to the reports of the trial, Dring had passed them as 'satisfactory', the minimum standard allowed, their inspection were merely to ascertain that waugh was obeying the regulations for swill feding, not whether he was observing even the minimum standards of animal welfare.
We may not approve of feeding processed swill to pigs for many reasons, nevertheless, it has been 'legal' for some time and the collection service for waste food products provided to schools and other institutions, as well as restaurants/hotels etc, has been both common practice and useful. Neither of the above however, indicate that a more sensible method of feeding pigs and disposing of waste food products is not advisable and in the circumstances necessary.
#There is nothing wrong with swill feeding provided the swill is boiled, witnesses at the trial clearly stated that waugh had cut corners and fed untreated waste. This is inexcusable.
As regards the condition of the his pigs suffering from FMD and your quote, "...the effects of FMD on pigs is very severe,.."
During the past months I have spoken to pig, cattle and sheep farmers and vets, who have told me the infected animals they were responsible for were suffering badly and they couldn't wait to put them out of their misery. I certainly believed them. At the same time, others have told me the infected livestock they were responsible for did not appear unwell and if infected at all were recovering or had done so, without any apparent ill effect. I certainly believed them too.
#Pigs incubate the virus faster and suffer the effects more severely than sheep. I very much doubt that any of the anecdotal evidence you have for the virus symptoms being less severe in some cases relates to pigs specifically. I cannot belive that even if the pigs were showing only mild symptoms, any competent stock man could have failed to notice that something was wrong , it beggars belief. The best defence Waugh could offer to this was from the elderly academic called as an expert witness, who said that there would be so many lame pigs anyway, infected ones would be hard to spot, hardly a defence IMO.
There is always a possibility that Bobby Waugh's pigs fell into the latter category and a great shame more research and notice of the effects caused and recovery from the virus, was not conducted during the recent epidemic.
##Dr Kitching stated that the pigs were suffering from sever symptoms.
The video footage shown on TV was filmed, as Bruce told us, on the 24th, when the pigs had not been 'bedded' the previous night and after the animals had been man-handled and 'bled'. Knowing how pigs unused to such treatment would behave, pathetic though it appeared, it came as no surprise to me and without very careful scrutiny cannot be taken as proof of anything good or bad.
#What about the evidence of eye witnesses, were they all liars and waugh the only one telling the truth?
Each of us will form our own opinion of Bobby Waugh's guilt or innocence on the evidence we have as reported in newspapers, on websites or seen on TV, but I for one, no longer believe all I read, see or am told. It takes a great deal to convince me of anything and even then I can always change my mind.
I am very grateful to Bruce for sending me his reports for publication on Farmtalking and this message board and also commend him for the friendship, kindness and the understanding he has shown towards Bobby Waugh.
#Yes, but it would be niaeve of us to think that Bruce did not have his own agenda here, he is writing a book on the subject.
All of us, Guilty or Innocent, need 'friends' like him and there is no doubt that if there had been more compassion, such as he demonstrates during last year, a great deal of animal and human suffering could have been avoided.
#Waugh had the right to a fair trial, and a chance to have his say. As far as i can see he got these, he had good legal representation and every chance to prove his innocence. He was found guilty, I believe this was the correct verdict.
He was cruel to his animals.
He did feed untreated swill to his pigs, which is by far the most likely origin of the FMD epidemic, I have heard all the conspiracy theories and investigated them thourghly, and i have found no evidence whatsoever that 'EU plans to abolish British farming' or 'missing vials' exist anywhere outside the fevered imaginations of loonies like Greg Lance Watkins and Nick Green.
FMD almost certainly did start on Waughs farm, the evidence is compelling, why look to unsubstantiated rumour? Had he acted honourably and reported it promptly, it could have been contained there, he didn't, the result was that nearly 10 million animals were slaughtered.
Is it wrong that he should have to take responsiblility for his actions?
Author wrote:
Several could not believe what they were hearing and everyone was stunned
at
the inference of using food from Chinese restaurants. Bobby had not
collected or fed Chinese swill and Judge Prowse's comment was made all the
more incredible by the fact that during 2001, the Government had
compensated
the local Chinese community to the sum of £20,000. Several hardened
journalists were stunned.
The thing that stuns me is that you are attempting to defend this man's
actions. It literally beggars belief. I would remind you that Waugh's
failure to notify MAFF that his pigs had FMD contributed greatly to the
extent of the epidemic.
Whilst he should not be made a scape goat for the incompetence of MAFF,
for
which he was not responsible, we should not forget that he WAS responsible
for the welfare of his animals, which he woefully neglected, he also had a
responsibility to report any notifiable disease. He may not have
recognised
FMD, very few have ever seen it first hand, but the effects of FMD on pigs
is very severe, he should have recognised that something was wrong. The
evidence of the expert witness seemed to be that there were so many lame
pigs as a matter of course on the farm, that this made it more difficult
to
spot FMD, well that's alright then.
I also view it as somewhat hypocritical to vilify the govt for their
inaction to control imports to this country because of the risk of FMD,
then
defend the reckless and stupid actions of a man who fed untreated swill to
his pigs, nearly every case of FMD in the last century was eventually
traced
back to pigs fed on swill.
Dr Paul Kitchen went to the farm and saw the pigs with his own eyes, if
he
says they had been infected for two weeks then that's good enough for me,
good lord, when he said the contiguous cull was unneccessary, you were
treating his every word as gospel, it seems a little disengenuous to start
doubting him now.
Please don't take my comments personally, i just feel that the tone of the
whole 'bobby waugh is innocent ' campagn is a tad ill advised.
The graphic video footage that has been aired on television tonight was
taken on Saturday 24th February. In his own defence, Bobby stated that his
pigs were "desperate" by that day. However, on Friday 23rd, MAFF had used
Bobby's sawdust to make a disinfectant mat across the road and prevented
him
from bedding up his pigs. The pigs had been "bled" for analysis, dragged
through the pens and were covered in pig-muck.
The pigs had been fed unprocessed swill on Friday evening on the direction
of Jim Dring – and no one criticises him on that in the circumstances –
but
the following day – Saturday – the video was taken showing the pigs
covered
in muck, "desperate" and unprocessed swill left lying in the troughs. The
swill was undoubtedly left in the troughs because the pigs weren't used to
eating uncooked swill. And any person that has worked with farm animals
realises that you cannot stop, chop and change diets. Animals loose
weight.
And Bobby was in the business of fattening pigs.
However, the video taken on 24th February, did not reflect the welfare and
conditions of the animals on Thursday 22nd February. The video gave a
false
or worse, impression of what conditions were like on Burnside Farm at the
time of the alleged offence.
Many thanks for all the e-mails, phone calls and messages received today.
And many stunned ones, since the verdict!
Bobby will now be assessing his options with his legal team and thanks
everyone for their messages of support.
Best wishes
Bruce
--
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="...">...">farmtalking-unsubscrib
e@smartgroups.com</a>
—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: ...

Originally from: Joyce

Andrew,
Please can you explain how the items [or even which items] in swill carry FMD virus but we are told that dead animals cannot pass it on? At least that is what I understood when piles of rotting carcases were left about the country. Joyce

Originally from: Dan Jay

Andrew – I don't know whether this guy Bobby Waugh is guilty as hell or is just a scapegoat but after reading his interview with the Guardian I did feel that he might have been treated badly, after all he has lost everything!!!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4424850,00.html

'Yesterday, Bobby Waugh – whose Northumberland farm is believed to be the source of last year's foot and mouth crisis – was found guilty of cruelty to animals and of keeping quiet about an outbreak among his livestock. He tells Fran Abrams that he was unlucky

Fran Abrams
Friday May 31, 2002
The Guardian

Bobby Waugh is a big man with very broad shoulders, which is fortunate. Since his pig unit at Heddon-on-the-Wall in Northumberland was identified 15 months ago as the possible source of the foot and mouth epidemic, they have had a lot to carry.

Days after the outbreak started, Burnside Farm was headline news. The few-hundred square metre pig unit at the farm was described in the press as "atrocious", "fetid", and "an eyesore". It was widely reported that uncooked swill from Chinese restaurants had given the farm's pigs foot and mouth. A flurry of stories ensued on Britain's illegal trade in suspect Asian meat.

The truth will possibly never be known. Although Waugh was convicted yesterday of cruelty, of failing to notify the authorities of the outbreak and of feeding unprocessed waste to his animals, he was never formally accused of starting last year's national crisis.

In any case, Waugh has had other things on his mind. On the day it was confirmed that his pigs had the disease, his elder brother and business partner Ronnie was admitted to hospital with suspected stomach cancer, for which he has been undergoing treatment ever since. A few months later, Bobby had a heart attack. Then, after being presented with a £30,000 clean-up bill which he could not pay, he was evicted from his premises and his life as a pig farmer was over.

Now Burnside Farm is a bleak place, whose name suggests something far more grandiose than its grimy reality. Where there used to be dilapidated wooden sheds, now there is bare, purged earth on which even the weeds have declined to grow. The corrugated huts where the pigs were kept still stand, but they are stripped bare, mere skeletons of a piggery. An abandoned scrubbing brush, a few disinfectant cannisters and a single rubber glove bear testament to recent events. A battered spoon lies half-buried. Even the smell of pigs has gone.

Waugh does not come here any more. He lives, as he always has, in a terraced house in Sunderland, which he shares with Ronnie and their two sisters, Dorothy and Isabel. None of them has ever married, and the family fiercely guards its privacy – even close friends say they have never been invited to the house. And so we meet in a faceless motel, where Waugh declines a drink and proceeds to describe his catalogue of calamity with little emotion. His hands, which are his most striking feature – huge, hamlike beasts, roughened and lined with thin white scars – remain loose in his lap while he talks.

The only time his shell cracks is when he is asked how he felt when he arrived at Burnside one morning last February to find both the local ministry vet and the press waiting for him. He laughs, a clipped little bark which makes his shoulders heave. "I don't panic easy," he says. If the word "phlegmatic" had not already been in the dictionary, they would have had to invent it for Waugh.

Over the past three weeks, Bedlington magistrates court has heard tales of horror about the state in which Bobby and Ronnie kept their premises. Dead pigs left lying around; uncooked swill left sitting in drums before being fed to the animals. Waugh continued to deny all the accusations.

After all, the Waughs have been pig farmers for more than half a century. As far back as Waugh can remember, pigs were his whole life. He doesn't drink, doesn't smoke, doesn't have hobbies. Just the pigs. Practically as soon as he could walk, his dad had him cleaning out the pens at the family pig unit, and he never considered any alternative careers.

"Never thought of doing anything else," he says. "You had to work on the farm
– you had no choice. Mucking out, everything."

Even before last year, things weren't easy. Bobby and Ronnie had been forced to quit their pig farm at Boldon in Sunderland seven years ago after the council, which owned the land, ordered them to carry out thousands of pounds-worth of improvements. And over the past three years it had been increasingly difficult to make a living. With pig prices dropping, they had been doing less breeding and more work for Cheale Meats in Essex, where the disease was first discovered, buying old sows from other farmers and fattening them up with swill before shipping them off to Germany for sausages.

"For three years, the job has just been desperate," Waugh says. "You sort of run out of money. You had to sell them, but you didn't want to sell because the price was right down. Normally you might have three bad months, but this had been three bad years. A 300 kilo sow before that would be worth £280. At one point it was worth £39." When the knackerman arrived there were just 527 animals at Burnside although its capacity was 1,400.

Waugh reacted to the news of foot and mouth with characteristic calm. Was he concerned, on the morning of Monday February 19, when he had a call from Andrew Cheale of Cheale Meats to say his abattoir had been closed because of suspected swine fever? No, he wasn't, he says.

"I wasn't worried at all, because there was nothing wrong with my pigs," he says. "If a pig was lying down, you would check it to see what was wrong. If it's sick, it will either come right or lie there till it dies. My pigs were up and eating. I know they were OK."

On the Thursday, the ministry vet, Jim Dring, arrived, and at 10.30am on the Friday the answer came: his tests were positive.

That was not a good day, Waugh concedes with almost heroic understatement. For a start, there were photographers and reporters everywhere. Two of them arrived at 6.30am, four hours before the positive test came through, according to his neighbour Jimmy Brown. When he got home that night, they were outside the house. And there were ministry vets and officials everywhere, carrying out more tests on the pigs and preparing for the inevitable cull.

"The worst thing was the way the photographers kept putting their cameras in your face. When I got home, my sisters were going mad because of all the press and that. They'd been waiting for a phone call from the hospital to say when to bring my brother in, and the press were knocking on the door and all sorts. They tried to get into the hospital as well."

The next day, the cull started. By then the pigs were looking sick, Waugh says. A local slaughterman had been brought in to do the job.

"Dring said to me, 'It's an awful job, but it's got to be done.' There were sows lying on the path still kicking, and there were more climbing on top of them to be shot. I bought pigs to kill, but I didn't buy them to kill them like that," Waugh says. The pyre burned for two weeks.

"That was the worst part," he says. "When they first light it, it doesn't smell too bad, but after a couple of days it's just like meat roasting. But not just meat, because it's got guts and innards and everything in it." He pulls a face.

Even after that, he firmly believed he would be able to restock Burnside once it was cleaned up. The new Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, created after the general election in June, had other ideas. By September, talks over the clean-up operation had stalled. Waugh was taken to Sunderland Royal Hospital with chest pains, and even now is still waiting to see a heart specialist. Ronnie had undergone a major operation and was having chemotherapy. When the notice to quit came in October, it was almost a relief to just walk away.

Waugh has not been idle, though. He still works for Cheale Meats, buying in old sows and passing them on for slaughter and export. He still maintains that if he hadn't taken pigs to Cheale Meats that week in February 2001, the foot and mouth epidemic would still have happened but someone else would have been blamed. He was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, he says.

"From the start, they just tried to make it impossible for me. When I think back now, everything makes me think they just wanted a scapegoat. I think they wanted it to happen at Burnside."

Originally from: and

Andrew,
Please can you explain how the items [or even which items] in swill carry

FMD virus but we are told that dead animals cannot pass it on? At least that is what I understood when piles of rotting carcases were left about the country.

Joyce

Hi joyce,

From: ...

Originally from Blacks;

"The virus can survive in frozen kidneys for 4 months or more. The use of swill containing scraps of meat or bone, or other animal tissue for feeding to pigs is a very important factor in the spread of foot and mouth disease, and because of the number of outbreaks traced to swill, the Ministry of Agriculture imposes a requirement upon those who use swill that it shall be boiled for 1 hour befor being fed."

The ministry claimed that as the pH level changed in decomposing carcasses ths would kill the virus, their theory, not mine, obviously this pH change does not occur in meat preserved for human consumption.

Swill feeding has been the most common cause of new outbreaks of FMD since the slaughter policy was introduced, and the only scource of infection came from outside the UK.

Also from Abigail Woods:

"for over 40 years, Argentina was
sending us infected meat, which via pigswill caused over 50% of all
FMD outbreaks during this time. Meat imports from other infected countries were banned in the '20s, but because the Argentine trade
was so important (at that stage providing 1/3 of our meat supply) and due to substantial British investment in Argentina (we owned a considerable % of the meat packing houses and shipping cos), the government decided to continue the trade. Instead of a ban, administrative arrangements and inpections were introduced to try and stop FMD infected animals leaving the farms and ending up at the meat packing plants for export."

Originally from: and

.

<snip>>

That may be your interpretation but was certainly not my intention. Bruce
Jobson sent me his reports of the trial and I published them verbatim for

the

information of members of the board.

Come on Jane, Jobson describes himself as a friend of Waughs, which hardly makes him an impartial observer..

From reading the reports I understand the conditions in which Bobby

Waugh's

kept his pigs were perhaps not the ideal.

From what you say, I imagine you have greater knowledge than I of Bobby
Waugh's business, it's primary concern and his attitude to the welfare of

the

animals in his care. If what you say is true and verifiable, concerning

all

three, I would agree with you.

With all due respect, after spending ten years working with pigs I'd say that I do. Waugh is representative of a lot on the urban fringe who run smallholdings/intensive units with the same
moral attitude as they run back street garages and cowboy building firms. Waugh was nt a farmer, he was, as one triala witness succinctly put it, 'an appauling keeper of pigs'

From the evidence, Bobby Waugh's farm and the condition of his livestock
regularly passed the Ministry Inspections, if we doubt their validity

that

is another matter that needs attention.
#according to the reports of the trial, Dring had passed them as
'satisfactory', the minimum standard allowed, their inspection were

merely

to ascertain that waugh was obeying the regulations for swill feding,

not

whether he was observing even the minimum standards of animal welfare.
Again, what you say is true regarding the 'satisfactory' pass and did not
include the standard of welfare for animals in his care, surely my
suggestion that if we doubt their validity it is another matter that needs
attention, is very valid.'

This is true, but the logic of your argument seems to be that it was the ministry's fault for failing to spot Waugh's trangressions, rather than Waug h's fault for acting recklessly and selfishly in the first place.

We may not approve of feeding processed swill to pigs for many reasons,
nevertheless, it has been 'legal' for some time and the collection

service

for waste food products provided to schools and other institutions, as

well

as restaurants/hotels etc, has been both common practice and useful.
Neither
of the above however, indicate that a more sensible method of feeding

pigs

and disposing of waste food products is not advisable and in the
circumstances necessary.
#There is nothing wrong with swill feeding provided the swill is boiled,
witnesses at the trial clearly stated that waugh had cut corners and fed
untreated waste. This is inexcusable.
Maybe I've missed something here but from the reports, I had understood

that

the only time unprocessed swill was fed to the pigs at Burnside, was on

the

instructions of the MAFF vet James Dring, the evening before they were
slaughtered. I was/am not aware that any 'proof' of feeding unprocessed

swill

on other occasions at Burnside,was brought in evidence.

This from the Independent.......

But why his swillfeeding practices had not been spotted earlier is baffling. The trial was told the Ministry of Agriculture had been on tenterhooks about pigswill farms after the Pan Asiatic O-type strain of foot-and- mouth took hold in countries such as Egypt and Mongolia in the 1990s. Ministry officials had written to Britain's 100 pigswill farmers, including Waugh, to warn that slops could cause the disease.

Despite the 1998 letter, Waugh's offence had not been detected at twice- yearly inspections by the local ministry vet, nor in December 2000, three months before the foot-and-mouth epidemic took hold, when he was visited by a vet and trading standards officer for an inspection.

A closely guarded trading standards log of this crucial meeting states that although the pigs were "generally in a good bodily condition", two were lame. Mick King, the head of Northumberland trading standards, has indicated there was a "difference of emphasis" over what action to take between the ministry vet and his own officer. The officer wanted firmer action than Maff's preferred "quiet word in the ear" but only the vet could approve a prosecution, so Waugh continued trading

That you doubt my word concerning anecdotal evidence is your perogative.
The fact that you cannot believe that any competant stockman could fail to
notice something was wrong even if the pigs were only showing mild

symptoms,

Assuming the sypmtoms were mild, and paul Kitching says they were severe, they would still affect the animals behaviour, FMD is charicterised by fever, general dullness and loss of appetite. How could any competent stock man fail to notice even a minor change in his animals behaviour? Unless of course, such ailments were common place anyway, or he simply didn't care, or possibly both.

is again your perogative and the fact that I can believe it, is mine.
I would also highly regard and respect the expert evidence of 'the elderly
academic' as you call him, that particular gentleman being highly esteemed

his peers and lesser mortals!

I read the account of his evidence, you could almost hear the axe grinding in the background. He seemed very dismissive of Kitchen, but if you don't mind I think I'll stick with the opinion of one of the World's leading experts on FMD over some guy who did some research on lameness in pigs in th 70's.

#What about the evidence of eye witnesses, were they all liars and waugh
the
only one telling the truth?
I would hope not – but you never know! You seem to believe Bobby Waugh was
lying but he could lso have been telling the truth.

The two were contradictory, so some one was lying, I'm inclined to agree with the court that it was Waugh.

Does the fact that he is writing a book prevent him from writing factual
reports of the case on a daily basis? Or are you saying that because he is
writing a book you don't believe his reports and consider those among us

who

choose to do so, are naive?

As Jobson clearly has his own agenda, as oppose to being an entirely impartial observer, it would be incredibly naive not to view his reports subjectively.

Again – as I've said before, we all make up our own minds as to what we
believe or disbelieve and you have chosen to leave us in no doubt as to

your

own beliefs and that is fine too. What is perhaps not quite so

'tickety-boo'

is your apparent conviction that you know what mine are. As I have yet to
come to a firm conclusion on many of these matters, that is presumtious in
the extreme!

As you have posted messages which seem to be sympathetic to waugh and paint him as some sort of victim, I don't see how it can be "presumtious in the extreme" to assume you feel Waugh is in some way being hard done by.

Whether the virus originated at waughs farm is immaterial, the fact remains that had he taken the action that 99.9% of other farmers would have, and reported the disease to a vet, action could have been taken WEEKS sooner, instead he kept on shipping infected pigs round the country.

Had he shown even the slightest shred of remorse, I might have some sympathy for him, but in the face of the most compelling evidence to the contrary he continues to deny all responsibilty, the sheer arrogance of the man astounds me.
.

This question opens a whole new ball game! What do any of us mean by

taking

responsibility for our own actions? Is it simply admitting our guilt?
Making recompense? Shouldering all the blame? Sharing the guilt with

others

complicit in our actions? These and many more questions will have to wait

for

another day as I'm already late for a rare excursion from home!
Best wishes – Jane

Hope the outing went well Jane

andrew

_______________________________________________________

Established 10th March 2001
Visit the 'Farm-talking' web site at:
<A HREF="http://www.farmtalking.com">FARMTALKING.org</A>
For Information, Help and Advice, Your Legal Rights and the Law
For Farmers, their families and others affected by the FMD crisis in the

U.K.

Originally from: Joyce

Hi Andrew,
Thanks for the info about the swill....now wouldn't it be far better if UK kept its meat for itself and closed the doors to imports of anything remotely risky – OR – bl**dy well vaccinate and be done with it. Global trading equals global risk! Now this bit:
"Whether the virus originated at waughs farm is immaterial, the fact remains that had he taken the action that 99.9% of other farmers would have, and reported the disease to a vet, action could have been taken WEEKS sooner, instead he kept on shipping infected pigs round the country." So why wasn't it spotted before?????????? even the week before?
Joyce

Originally from: David

Andrew,

Are you saying that Bruce Jobson's report is inaccurate and he is not complying with his profession's code of practice?

If you read Bruce's account, Bobby Waugh should not have been found guilty.

Are you and the Judge reading between the lines or have you and the Judge pre-judged the case based on all the reports over the last 14 months?

What evidence do you have that he deliberately failed to report FMD? There are many other incidences of old lesions on sheep and cattle but no one else has been prosecuted.

My biggest concern last year was that I might not diagnose it. Even DEFRA got it wrong millions of times by slaughtering uninfected animals – a far greater crime which no one has been prosecuted.

David

-----Original Message-----
From: ...
Originally from: Andrew Byron [...] Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2002 4:12 PM
To: ...
Subject: Re: [farmtalking] Bobby Waugh's Trial – Bruce Jobson reports.
----- Original Message -----
From: ...
Originally from: <...>
To: <...>
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 6:53 PM
Subject: Re: [farmtalking] Bobby Waugh's Trial – Bruce Jobson reports.
I'm none too sure there is a 'Bobby Waugh is innocent campaign'!
#Forgive me, but the general tone of the posting did seem to suggest that you found Mr Waugh to have been hard done by at the very least.
.
From: ...
Originally from reading the reports I understand the conditions in which Bobby Waugh's kept his pigs were perhaps not the ideal.
#I'd say that was an understatement
Nevertheless, many farmers house pigs in the same way and I would guess that the industry having been depressed for some time, they may not have been able to afford the installation of slats and or alternative and better methods of housing that are recommended.
#Though i would not condone intensive farming methods, most units are considerably better run then waugh's, The pigs may have little quality of life but at least they are, by neccesity, kept in good health. Waugh's business was primarily concerned with the disposal of catering waste, the welfare of the pigs was obviously of little concern to him. financial hardship is not an excuse for cruelty, if he couldn't afford to keep the pigs he shouldn't have had them, it's that simple.
From: ...
Originally from the evidence, Bobby Waugh's farm and the condition of his livestock regularly passed the Ministry Inspections, if we doubt their validity that is another matter that needs attention.
#according to the reports of the trial, Dring had passed them as 'satisfactory', the minimum standard allowed, their inspection were merely to ascertain that waugh was obeying the regulations for swill feding, not whether he was observing even the minimum standards of animal welfare.
We may not approve of feeding processed swill to pigs for many reasons, nevertheless, it has been 'legal' for some time and the collection service for waste food products provided to schools and other institutions, as well as restaurants/hotels etc, has been both common practice and useful. Neither of the above however, indicate that a more sensible method of feeding pigs and disposing of waste food products is not advisable and in the circumstances necessary.
#There is nothing wrong with swill feeding provided the swill is boiled, witnesses at the trial clearly stated that waugh had cut corners and fed untreated waste. This is inexcusable.
As regards the condition of the his pigs suffering from FMD and your quote, "...the effects of FMD on pigs is very severe,.."
During the past months I have spoken to pig, cattle and sheep farmers and vets, who have told me the infected animals they were responsible for were suffering badly and they couldn't wait to put them out of their misery. I certainly believed them. At the same time, others have told me the infected livestock they were responsible for did not appear unwell and if infected at all were recovering or had done so, without any apparent ill effect. I certainly believed them too.
#Pigs incubate the virus faster and suffer the effects more severely than sheep. I very much doubt that any of the anecdotal evidence you have for the virus symptoms being less severe in some cases relates to pigs specifically. I cannot belive that even if the pigs were showing only mild symptoms, any competent stock man could have failed to notice that something was wrong , it beggars belief. The best defence Waugh could offer to this was from the elderly academic called as an expert witness, who said that there would be so many lame pigs anyway, infected ones would be hard to spot, hardly a defence IMO.
There is always a possibility that Bobby Waugh's pigs fell into the latter category and a great shame more research and notice of the effects caused and recovery from the virus, was not conducted during the recent epidemic.
##Dr Kitching stated that the pigs were suffering from sever symptoms.
The video footage shown on TV was filmed, as Bruce told us, on the 24th, when the pigs had not been 'bedded' the previous night and after the animals had been man-handled and 'bled'. Knowing how pigs unused to such treatment would behave, pathetic though it appeared, it came as no surprise to me and without very careful scrutiny cannot be taken as proof of anything good or bad.
#What about the evidence of eye witnesses, were they all liars and waugh the only one telling the truth?
Each of us will form our own opinion of Bobby Waugh's guilt or innocence on the evidence we have as reported in newspapers, on websites or seen on TV, but I for one, no longer believe all I read, see or am told. It takes a great deal to convince me of anything and even then I can always change my mind.
I am very grateful to Bruce for sending me his reports for publication on Farmtalking and this message board and also commend him for the friendship, kindness and the understanding he has shown towards Bobby Waugh.
#Yes, but it would be niaeve of us to think that Bruce did not have his own agenda here, he is writing a book on the subject.
All of us, Guilty or Innocent, need 'friends' like him and there is no doubt that if there had been more compassion, such as he demonstrates during last year, a great deal of animal and human suffering could have been avoided.
#Waugh had the right to a fair trial, and a chance to have his say. As far as i can see he got these, he had good legal representation and every chance to prove his innocence. He was found guilty, I believe this was the correct verdict.
He was cruel to his animals.
He did feed untreated swill to his pigs, which is by far the most likely origin of the FMD epidemic, I have heard all the conspiracy theories and investigated them thourghly, and i have found no evidence whatsoever that 'EU plans to abolish British farming' or 'missing vials' exist anywhere outside the fevered imaginations of loonies like Greg Lance Watkins and Nick Green.
FMD almost certainly did start on Waughs farm, the evidence is compelling, why look to unsubstantiated rumour? Had he acted honourably and reported it promptly, it could have been contained there, he didn't, the result was that nearly 10 million animals were slaughtered.
Is it wrong that he should have to take responsiblility for his actions?
Author wrote:
Several could not believe what they were hearing and everyone was stunned
at
the inference of using food from Chinese restaurants. Bobby had not
collected or fed Chinese swill and Judge Prowse's comment was made all the
more incredible by the fact that during 2001, the Government had
compensated
the local Chinese community to the sum of £20,000. Several hardened
journalists were stunned.
The thing that stuns me is that you are attempting to defend this man's
actions. It literally beggars belief. I would remind you that Waugh's
failure to notify MAFF that his pigs had FMD contributed greatly to the
extent of the epidemic.
Whilst he should not be made a scape goat for the incompetence of MAFF,
for
which he was not responsible, we should not forget that he WAS responsible
for the welfare of his animals, which he woefully neglected, he also had a
responsibility to report any notifiable disease. He may not have
recognised
FMD, very few have ever seen it first hand, but the effects of FMD on pigs
is very severe, he should have recognised that something was wrong. The
evidence of the expert witness seemed to be that there were so many lame
pigs as a matter of course on the farm, that this made it more difficult
to
spot FMD, well that's alright then.
I also view it as somewhat hypocritical to vilify the govt for their
inaction to control imports to this country because of the risk of FMD,
then
defend the reckless and stupid actions of a man who fed untreated swill to
his pigs, nearly every case of FMD in the last century was eventually
traced
back to pigs fed on swill.
Dr Paul Kitchen went to the farm and saw the pigs with his own eyes, if
he
says they had been infected for two weeks then that's good enough for me,
good lord, when he said the contiguous cull was unneccessary, you were
treating his every word as gospel, it seems a little disengenuous to start
doubting him now.
Please don't take my comments personally, i just feel that the tone of the
whole 'bobby waugh is innocent ' campagn is a tad ill advised.
The graphic video footage that has been aired on television tonight was
taken on Saturday 24th February. In his own defence, Bobby stated that his
pigs were "desperate" by that day. However, on Friday 23rd, MAFF had used
Bobby's sawdust to make a disinfectant mat across the road and prevented
him
from bedding up his pigs. The pigs had been "bled" for analysis, dragged
through the pens and were covered in pig-muck.
The pigs had been fed unprocessed swill on Friday evening on the direction
of Jim Dring – and no one criticises him on that in the circumstances –
but
the following day – Saturday – the video was taken showing the pigs
covered
in muck, "desperate" and unprocessed swill left lying in the troughs. The
swill was undoubtedly left in the troughs because the pigs weren't used to
eating uncooked swill. And any person that has worked with farm animals
realises that you cannot stop, chop and change diets. Animals loose
weight.
And Bobby was in the business of fattening pigs.
However, the video taken on 24th February, did not reflect the welfare and
conditions of the animals on Thursday 22nd February. The video gave a
false
or worse, impression of what conditions were like on Burnside Farm at the
time of the alleged offenc

Re: Bobby Waugh's Trial - Bruce Jobson reports.

ReferenceRe: Bobby Waugh's Trial - Bruce Jobson reports.

ReferenceBobby Waugh's Trial - Bruce Jobson reports.

ReferenceRe: Bobby Waugh's Trial - Bruce Jobson reports.

ReferenceRe: Bobby Waugh's Trial - Bruce Jobson reports.

ReferenceRe: Bobby Waugh's Trial - Bruce Jobson reports.

ReferenceRe: Bobby Waugh's Trial - Bruce Jobson reports.

ReferenceRe: Bobby Waugh's Trial - Bruce Jobson reports.

ReferenceRe: Bobby Waugh's Trial - Bruce Jobson reports.

ReferenceRe: Bobby Waugh's Trial - Bruce Jobson reports.

ReferenceRe: Bobby Waugh's Trial - Bruce Jobson reports.

ReferenceRe: Bobby Waugh's Trial - Bruce Jobson reports.

ReferenceRe: Bobby Waugh's Trial - Bruce Jobson reports.

ReferenceRe: Bobby Waugh's Trial - Bruce Jobson reports.

ReferenceRe: Bobby Waugh's Trial - Bruce Jobson reports.

ReferenceRE: Bobby Waugh's Trial - Bruce Jobson reports.