Re: For your attention

Originally from: Joyce
                        

snip

"The reports come amid concern that the livestock population is rising much faster than anticipated, with little sign of the anticipated shake-out in the industry after the foot and mouth epidemic.

Many farmers have taken advantage of generous government compensation to restock, raising fears that supply could eventually exceed demand again."

*Is this an admission of the livestock population control policy [not disease control] of 2001?

snip

"With direct compensation payments to farmers for more than 6 million slaughtered livestock put at £1.4bn, the NAO has pointed to both farmers and the wider agricultural industry ripping off the taxpayer with inflated livestock valuations."

* I have a distinct memory of vastly inflated prices being OFFERED to farmers to join in the massacre....."

Originally from: frances fish
                        
Frances spotted this on the Guardian Unlimited site and thought you should see it.

Note from Frances:

Death knell of Defra ?We can but hope, with their jobs at risk, backs to the wall, bound to fight dirty. Does a tiger change its stripes ?

To see this story with its related links on the Guardian Unlimited site, go to http://www.guardian.co.uk

Countryside policy shakeup threatens cull of agencies
Lord Haskins wants to break up the agriculture department to give better value for money and help reduce bureaucracy Peter Hetherington, regional affairs editor
Sunday July 13 2003
The Observer

Farming and country stewardship in England is facing its biggest shakeup for more than 50 years. Pressure is mounting for a new land management agency and the breakup of the two-year-old Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).

Senior ministers will be told shortly in a report they commissioned from the Labour peer Lord Haskins that a radical overhaul of agriculture and countryside policy is needed to give the taxpayer better value for money and to reduce bureaucracy.

Lord Haskins' concern has been underlined by another report from three leading rural academics, to be published shortly, which accuses the government of failing to learn the lessons of the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak by continuing to support farming at the expense of the rural economy.

It says neglect of this wider dimension in the continuing debate about farming is a "worrying indication" that the government has yet to come to grips with the state of the countryside.

The reports come amid concern that the livestock population is rising much faster than anticipated, with little sign of the anticipated shake-out in the industry after the foot and mouth epidemic.

Many farmers have taken advantage of generous government compensation to restock, raising fears that supply could eventually exceed demand again. This has led to some farming experts accusing ministers of storing up problems by writing farmers a blank cheque.

Under Lord Haskins' proposals, a string of quangos, from the countryside agency to English Nature and the forestry commission, would be merged into one organisation. It would also have overall responsibility for 10 national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty.

Lord Haskins' review, which began last September, has set alarm bells ringing in parts of Whitehall because he is likely to recommend that many centralised services should be devolved to the regions.

His key recommendation will involve slimming down Defra to purely a policy department, with its delivery functions going to regional development agencies.

Lord Haskins, the former boss of Northern Foods, has been feeding his proposals into a review of civil service dispersal currently being undertaken for the government by Sir Michael Lyons, who has been asked by ministers to identify which Whitehall departments, and government agencies, can be moved out of London.

Lord Haskins said yesterday that unless radical changes were made in the delivery of rural support, the present system would be unable to cope with changes in the EU's common agricultural policy.

He said he would be offering "strong, clear opportunities for the regions" by taking delivery functions away from Defra. "That is a message not just for Defra, but right across Whitehall ... nobody quite knows when things go wrong whether it's a policy or a delivery failure."

On the wider rural front, he envisages that a new land management agency will take over statutory responsibility for a string of agencies. He has identified 77 different funding streams in Defra alone. "The complaints I get _ are that people are completely confused about what they are getting."

The report by rural academics complains of a policy drift in Whitehall after the 32-week foot and mouth outbreak, which cost the country £8bn, according to the national audit office.

With direct compensation payments to farmers for more than 6 million slaughtered livestock put at £1.4bn, the NAO has pointed to both farmers and the wider agricultural industry ripping off the taxpayer with inflated livestock valuations.

With farming swallowing up so much cash, the report from a team led by Neil Ward, professor of human geography at Leeds University, bluntly warns: "The neglect of the rural economy dimension in the formal learning process is a worrying indication that wider rural policy lessons from foot and mouth may not be learned."

Lord Haskins' report comes as the government tries to move faster than other EU partners, particularly France and Germany, in reforming Europe's £30bn annual support regime, which has led to overproduction and "dumping" subsidised food in developing countries. Two weeks ago EU farm ministers agreed only a diluted version of proposals for slashing production subsidies. Consumer groups accused them of missing a golden opportunity.

Their concerns gained new momentum at the weekend after the resignation of the Home Office minister Michael Wills, who described the CAP as a "grotesque protectionist racket".

Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited
                        

Originally from: brentns
                        

Subject: [farmtalking] For your attention
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 06:15:38 +0000 (UTC)

Frances spotted this on the Guardian Unlimited site and thought you should
see it.

---

Note from Frances:

Death knell of Defra ?We can but hope, with their jobs at risk, backs to
the wall, bound to fight dirty. Does a tiger change its stripes ?
-------

Hi Frances,

Sigh.. what this is likely to mean.. and it's not surprising in an organizational sense.. Is that with increasing power handed over to Brussels wrt policy.. that they don't need so many in London..
Yes it's recognized that Defra/Maff has completely botched so much..

So what you are likely to get therefore.. is handoff of implementation to regions.. What one should anticipate from this.. is effectively
local "enforcers".. Gaulieters/Commissars at a local level.. which will stringently enforce orders from Brussels/London..
Policy will still be determined at higher levels.. so you won't get local automony or flexibility.. You will get another bunch of effectively, "enforcer" thugs.. making your life miserable at a local level..
Sigh.. was it ever thus..
Sorry to have to say this.. but this is how i would interpret the organizational changes..
The career Defra civil servants, will of course be terrified about losing their jobs and pensions.. Didn't the Gov already say that they were gonna sack managers that couldn't get up to speed with modern, job, computers skills..
They will therefore be at pains to justify their existence..

All the Best
brent

Originally from: Farmtalking
                        
I guess Brent could be right and the scenario he paints isn't too pretty!

However, trying to look on the bright side – as some of you may realise is a fairly persistant trait with me – perhaps it will turn out to be a good thing if a few of those who have failed to do their job properly at MAFF/DEFRA get the push!

We might be lucky and they will be replaced by people who really 'know' and most importantly, 'care' about what they are doing to Agriculture in the UK.

Both in HQ and the regions we have to have personnel who are willing to learn and understand how things work 'on the ground' and the effects, for good or ill, that the legislation has on those working at ground level.

At the same time, the farmers have to be willing to learn and adapt to new 'best practice' methods that may be introduced both for livestock and arable farming.

For instance IMO, very serious consideration of the effects some recently introduced legislation is likely to have on those concerned, both animal and human, is urgently needed.

At last there are second thoughts re the OTM scheme and perhaps the NSP.

Legislation introduced as a knee-jerk reaction to events tends to do more damage than good in the long run and we've seen plenty of examples of just how devastating it can be during the past few years.

At the same time, dragging our feet over what needs to be done is unforgiveable. If they could validate tests for SARS PDQ recently, why don't they do the same for FMD?

I live in hope!

Originally from: brentns
                        

Subject: Re: [farmtalking] For your attention
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:47:31 +0100 (BST)

I guess Brent could be right and the scenario he paints isn't too pretty!

Hi Jane. Frances,

I'm not nearly as pessimistic, or downhearted, as it would probably appear from my posts.. However, i just think we've gotta as a first step, recognise the processes used against us.. and dispense with wishful thinking, to the extent we just are using it to anaesthetise ourselves from the realities.. Trusting/hoping that government/DEFRA will reform themselves.. just isn't realistic..
It is however, very useful to have people with good values come together to help each other..such as you've been doing, Jane, et al
We do however need to recognise the nature and root of the problem.. which is and has always been political..

Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning, they want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it be a struggle.
Power concedes nothing without a demand... It never did... and it never will... Find out just what the people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." – Frederick Douglas (1857) http://www.conservativeforum.org/authquot.asp?ID=185
http://www.google.ca/search?as_q=&num=10&hl=en&ie=ISO-8859–1&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=frederick+douglass&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=images

When some government dept talks about consultations consensus etc
here's what to bear in mind..

For example.. the government's "limited" admission that they bungled FMD by having too centralized decision making at DEFRA.. sets the stage for control by local Gaulieters
http://www.learn-usa.com/er011.htm

"Ah consensus … the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects; the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner 'I stand for consensus'?"
— Margaret Thatcher
http://www.learn-usa.com/acf.htm
http://www.learn-usa.com/acf006.htm

Using the Delphi Technique to Achieve Consensus http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/1998/nov98/focus.html

Consensus and Other Evils
Let's say an issue (or crisis) arises in your community or town. There's a meeting called to get your input on the issue; to help solve the problem. This is to give you the impression that your opinions have merit or worth when indeed, a solution has already been decided on and will be implemented, no matter what your position is. The meeting is not held to solve the problem. The meeting is held to change YOU http://nwri.org/consensus/consensus_and_delphi_technique_in_the_classroom.htm

The Consensus Con
The newest fad in political correctness is "consensus building" through "stakeholder" councils, in meetings that are conducted by trained "facilitators." The process is said to provide broad public input into policy decisions that result in "better" policy decisions. Consensus building is the process used by the United Nations. It is the process used by and recommended by the President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD): "We need a new collaborative decision process that leads to better decisions; more rapid change; and more sensible use of human, natural, and financial resources in achieving our goals."
Most people would readily assume that a decision reached by consensus means that the people who made the decision were in agreement. Wrong! Consensus does not mean agreement; it means the absence of disagreement. The consensus process begins with a predetermined objective in mind, and consensus is reached when objections to that predetermined position have been quieted. The process is designed to give the appearance of broad participation in the process to reach a consensus on a position that was determined before the process began.
http://www.nwri.org/consensus/consensus_con.htm

Workshop for The Delphi Technique
otherwise known as the “consensus process”
GOAL: “ The goal of the Delphi technique is to lead a targeted group of people to a pre-determined outcome, while giving the illusion of taking public input under the pretext of being accountable to the public.” (Becraft)
For the Delphi to work, it is critical that the targeted group be kept away from knowledgeable people who could lead them away from the Delphier's predetermined outcome.
http://nwri.org/consensus/the_process.htm

cheers
brent

Originally from: Farmtalking
                        

Author wrote:

Subject: Re: [farmtalking] For your attention
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:47:31 +0100 (BST)

I guess Brent could be right and the scenario he paints isn't too pretty!

Hi Jane. Frances

I'm not nearly as pessimistic, or downhearted, as it would probably appear from my posts..

Hi Brent!

That's good to know! – Jane
                        

Originally from: frances fish
                        
Dear Brent, I echo Jane's comment but have to say that your "snips" ring so true, it is frightening, obviously universal, as this could be in the U.K. and is in the (forgive me ?), once great, USA ? Are we protesters also regarded as terrorists ? Perhaps "soft terrorists " as opposed to hardcore ? We are a nuisance and to be ridiculed and our views minimalised, like a phone no, accepted and then screwed up and thrown in the bin when no-one is looking any more ? Luckily depression last only briefly, we are made of sterner stuff and we fight on.............. Frances

Originally from: brentns
                        
Hi Jane,

The sort of things you are experiencing, are going on all over the world.. Some comments from Buchal, (Puget Sound Salmon) and Klamath suckerfish (pseudo)issues.. may seem familiar

All the Best
brent

Speech at the Klamath Falls Headgates: The Revolution Starts Here Author(s): James Buchal

Let's not be fooled here: the people who are making noises about Officer Redfield are people who don't like what he said. And anybody who feels the need to object to what Officer Redfield said is not on your side. That's what it all comes down to, in the end. Which side are you on? Are you on the side of those who oppose illegitimate federal authority, the product of lies about the law and lies about the science, or are you on the side of dumbing down and trusting an ever-growing government that is less and less and less accountable to anyone. As time goes on, Officer Redfield's prophesies will become truer and truer, and every citizen of this country will have to make a choice.
Snip

Some Remarks on Organization
Now last time I came down here, I was preaching the virtues of civil disobedience, and I think I was proven right. I think that unless those brave farmers who seized the headgates again and again had done so, the faceless bureaucrats in D.C. would have slept on, because they just wouldn't have had to pay attention to the problem. And I understand you have an opportunity coming up, in a couple of weeks, to make them pay attention to you again
snip
The very independence that is the strength and beauty of you people is a great weakness when it comes to organization
Snip
Because unless you people get your act together, the handwriting is on the wall. You have been declared "unsustainable", and you will be removed. Slowly but surely, the federal government and the evil carpetbaggers the federal government has brought to town will take over more and more land, and make the few that remain more and more dependent on the federal government, and the forces of evil will win.
Now if your leaders don't see the need to get more organized, and put aside their petty concerns in the service of a larger Movement, well, then, we know what they are, don't we? They are part of the problem, and you are going to have to get rid of them if you want to win. http://www.ruralcleansing.com/articles/article002.htm

Rural Cleansing
By Kimberley A. Strassel http://www.ruralcleansing.com/articles/article004.htm

Environmentalists, Terrorists, Patriotism and the War Against America

Snip
Our so-called leaders work day and night to try and persuade us that they are powerless, and that there is this thing called "the law" that just forces them to do all these crazy things. But the listings were political decisions, the 4(d) rules were political decisions, and the Bush Administration's decision to let federal bureaucrats keep pushing this crap is a political decision
And you know what? Nothing is going to change until you people wake up and start fighting. It doesn't take much. It just takes an angry mob to start showing up at these meetings and saying who the hell are you to tell me I can't remodel my house the way I want because of some fish? Are you people nuts? Do you think fish swim through my living room? Do you think a fish can feel the difference between plowing twenty-five feet away from the water and plowing 125 feet away? Do you think that a fish can tell the difference between whether "native vegetation" or ordinary lawn grass is growing on your property twenty feet away from the river?
Snip
For those of you who might be a little uncomfortable with the idea that your own government is part of the problem here, maybe you can think about the federal government like some sort of alcoholic father that you love -- but you know you have to put him in rehab to get him straightened out so that he can function. And just to take that analogy one step farther, you know what the liquor is, don't you? It is power. We have a government full of people with no principles, only a drive for power. For them, it doesn't matter what the truth is; the only question is how they will look in the newspapers. Snip
And the reason I am taking the trouble to read all this to you is that because you are going to come across more and more of these people who call themselves "scientists", but are really just powermongers. These are the people who know best what is for us, even though they know nothing. And when I hear every single Northwest politician telling me how peer review and good science is going to put us on the right path to salmon recovery, I think, boy are these people dumb.
snip
We have an entire generation growing up that is trained to look to the government to supply their every want and need, and to fear anyone who dares to speak out as dangerous or an extremist. I've got news for you. If you read in the paper that some political candidate is an extremist, you ought to go hear what they have to say, because there's a good chance that it's somebody that should be in a position of leadership, to start cleaning house Snip
There is a battle going on for the soul of America. Our enemies want us to forget what America is, just tune out and put the federal government in charge of everything, right down to how we remodel our houses. Don't worry, be happy, watch MTV and let the government take care of everything.
But the government is no better than the people who are in it, and most of them aren't worth a bucket of warm spit. We should always remember that on September 11th, it wasn't the government that fought back against the terrorists, it was ordinary Americans. In the end, that's what we have to rely on, ourselves. Times are going to get tougher and tougher, and ordinary people are going to rise to the occasion and take back their government. Like those brave souls on Flight 93 who told the terrorists "you're not going to hijack this plane", they are going to say, "we've had enough of you hijacking our government".
That's really all it takes. Because the enemy are cowards. When the harsh light of public opinion turns against them, they run like rats. But it's up to you to bring that pressure on them http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/oct_2001/environmentalists_terrorists.htm

Originally from: chris stockdale
                        
In a message dated 17/07/2003 07:52:48 GMT Daylight Time, ... writes:

Luckily depression last only briefly, we are made of sterner stuff and we
fight on..............

Thank you, Frances, for those stirring words.

Next week we have another DEFRA 'FMD Stakeholder Communications sub-group' meeting in London. Having originally articulated the need for the group as being
 to facilitate communications between 'Stakeholders' per se as well as between Stakeholders and DEFRA , and Stakeholders/DEFRA and the general public, I am presently saddened to find that DEFRA will only consider the latter function as our role, presently summarised as being to 'advise the Government on the best methods for communicating to the agricultural communities, processors, wholesalers, retailers and consumers the safety and efficacy, (plus the practical realities consequent upon the implementation) of a vaccination programme should such be called upon in future', and the intention is that we should (somehow ) achieve this ahead of that future event, reassuring the public of the safety of the vaccine without unduly alarming them by excessive reference to the 32 vaccines currently in use in British agriculture (try not to mention them) nor labouring the point about FMD vaccinated meat being consumed unwittingly all the time, because, hey, this isn't helpful!

Flattered as I am to be in the priviledged position of being allowed to spend a couple of hours a month at my own expense in a dingy basement in London 'advising' the Government, I will feel considerably more reassured that I am not wasting my time when DEFRA increase our remit to include –

a) intra-Stakeholder communications (both to allay suspicions that we are being divided and ruled and to ensure that we can find our differences and attempt to resolve them ahead of the next outbreak, when otherwise LCD politics will arise [Sir Ben] again), and

b) ongoing and regular Stakeholder 'Innovation monitoring' – as the governed, it would be nice to know that everything that reasonably can be done to both prevent a recurrence and mitigate the impact of one is being done.

That said, DEFRA have now agreed to an annual update on Innovations and technical progress, to be presented to Stakeholders immediately following the annual EFRA update (unknown to myself EFRA had similarly been demanding the same). I would like to see Rapid Diagnostic Technology available and deployed, (or a very good reason given why it shouldn't be), progress on Bio-secure entry/exit portals, mobile laboratories, mobile incinerators, painless nasal lavage, improvements to IT, cross-societal Contingency Plan rehearsal and the conference Roger Eddy called for to assemble all the experts with the latest knowledge on NSP tests, vaccines, appraisal of the risk from carriers etc.,actually happening – then we can communicate a message of culture change, of an agricultural and veterinary policy being run in a Modern manner, including a realistic potential use of vaccines.

Ideally, I would like to see a mini-Science Fair built around the annual update, to allow Science and technology to really fast forward, at least biennially, to put some pride back in what we can do, other than kill.

Meanwhile, I remain concerned that, despite some kind and well-intentioned persons within DEFRA and the SVS, and despite assurances from the NFU representative, we (the Communications sub-group) are merely being deployed as a sop to keep people like me within the tent but neutralised.

Brents' observations re 'consensus' building, Delphi techniques etc., provided a useful check-list for milestones previously passed. In my experience, the only tool that broke through them was 'righteous anger' and the willingness to abandon middle-class politeness and awe of the proceedings to speak up promptly, to prevent meetings being run out of time. Hence we now have this Communications (sub-) group, and hence I am on it ( NOT a foregone conclusion – after I had proposed it, informally started it, got it on the Agenda, we had all discussed it's role, and, as instructed, nominated myself, I was not appointed to it – until another persistent, determined and public challenge to the Chair brought a change of mind).

Having gone out on a limb and been atypically (I would surmise) but neccessarily and effectively 'rude', I now have a place on this group. Please do contact me with any communications you wish me to take to these Communication Group meetings, and I will try and get it forwarded to the right slot (obviously this does not replace writing to DEFRA in the first instance). In the present climate, with the outbreak in Libya, recent debate in the House of Lords etc., the topic is again fairly prominent so now is a good time to push for answers and progress – the doors that are open will swing wide open and doors that appear open but are wedged shut will be revealed. The wonder of Communications is that it is a wide-ranging brief, or at least should be so – if you agree, let me know, and/or DEFRA at Nobel House, Smith Square, London.

 best wishes to all still fighting on,
 Chris.
                        

Originally from: Farmtalking
                        
Hi Chris!

Thanks for your message – You're doing sterling work at DEFRA and I only wish more farmers were aware of what you're doing and that too can have the chance to have their say through you!

If it's helpful I could add a page to Farmtalking to publish your message and or reports of the meetings you have; including what is discussed and suggested. It just might help to spread the word a little?

It still seems that with regard to vaccination, DEFRA is rather paranoid as to how the public, which includes farmers, would react.

Of course there are many of us who are well aware of the 32 vaccines used in British Agriculture and so far I've not come across any who have thrown up their hands in horror at the thought of consuming vaccinated meat.

My guess is that if we were told that vaccination would prevent the horrors of 2001, there would be very few voices of dissent.

Of course, there might be a few who would point out that our Government's failure to use vaccination two years ago and the false reasons they gave for not doing so – if I remember correctly, 'the public wouldn't accept vaccinated meat' and 'the vaccine might not work', 'would cost too much' etc, etc. – are yet another example of their 'spin' based on falsehoods and misconceptions!

If only they would 'practice what they preached' and give us truly 'open government' many of their problems would be over, and if they had done it from the start, so many of problems would never have arisen!

How many times have we all imagined the worst in any situation, as with a dental appointemnt, only to find out it wasn't so bad after all?

Who was it that said, 'The truth will set you free'?

As it is, they are so anxious to hang on to power they continue to cover-up mistakes as best they can, which in fact weakens their control and power base and fools no one who takes an interest and follows their actions in certain fields.

If only they realised that we all make mistakes and get things wrong! – even Margaret Becket admitted they were 'only human' – but to apologise and try to make amends for our mis-deeds is usually seen as a sign of strength and much admired.

On a personal note, of course I'm saddened by the fact that it's taking so long for DEFRA/Government to adopt pen-side testing and vaccination, but I'm certainly not depressed! Nor will I be while I know there are so many others, like yourself, who are still beavering away as best they can in our cause.

Some we know well, such a Mary at Warmwell, Paul Roger, Brent, Mary Marshall, Andy Hurst, Ann Lambourne, Alan Beat, Hilary Peters, etc. There are many others who we may not hear from very often or even don't know, but nevertheless know they are doing what they can to seek the truth and change things for the better.

I may not appear to be as active an agitator as I was during 2001/2, I simply have to devote more time to my work but I have never abandoned my sense of optomism and hopefulness. I still believe that 'a problem shared can be a problem solved' and will continue to answer the phone and up-date Farmtalking when necessary.

All the best and thanks again!

Jane

Originally from: brentns
                        

Subject: [farmtalking] RE: For your attention
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 07:52:34 +0100 (BST)

Dear Brent, I echo Jane's comment but have to say that your "snips" ring so
true, it is frightening, obviously universal, as this could be in the U.K.
and is in the (forgive me ?), once great, USA ? Are we protesters also
regarded as terrorists ? Perhaps "soft terrorists " as opposed to hardcore
?
We are a nuisance and to be ridiculed and our views minimalised, like a
phone no, accepted and then screwed up and thrown in the bin when no-one is
looking any more ?

Our society has drifted too long in the wrong direction, I think ..The Animal Death Bill for instance, criminalizes resistance to some government actions. What would previously have been well understood to be simply upholding ones rights, suddenly is redefined as a crime..

There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws."
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

The whole Orwellian doubletalk, newspeak, PC jargon, we have nowadays, I find repulsive..
For example, the term "civil society”, implies the government as masters of the people, rather than limited government accountable to the people.. Chris gave a perfect example, regarding what Defra “deigns” to “allow” as mandate for “stakeholder” councils. Actually “stakeholder” is another Orwellian term, implying groups in “civil” society, concerned with certain issues.. By the government definition, those who don’t agree with them are “uncivil” and their views will be ignored..if at all possible
All I can say is, long may we be uncivil.. And as far as being “stakeholders”, may we drive the stakes through Dracula’s heart..

Luckily depression last only briefly, we are made of sterner stuff and we
fight on..............
Frances

Yep, that’s the spirit.. Government will not reform themselves.. If we want accountable government restored, ordinary people must get involved and take charge of the process..

cheers
brent