Governments
Originally from: frances fish
Dear Burkie, this is supposed to be a chatline for farming, rural people and other interested parties. It is supposed to be non-political. Where there is gross incompetence and injustice in the administration of our country, it is almost impossible to keep it a-political. We do tend to keep it non- party-political though, it is as much as we can manage, and I do not recall the last time, or even if there was an incidence, when anyone posted that was complimentary to our Government ! You are American, you are knocking our Government, fair enough, so do we, there is plenty of ammunition, heaven's above. However, please refrain from knocking us as not fighting back, you make us sound like a bunch of wingeing couch potatoes. Is there not plenty that you could get yout teeth into about your administration on your side of the "pond" ? We all do what we can, sometimes, most times, it doesn't seem much, but it can encourage others to stand by their beliefs and, just occasionally, to stand up and be counted. Rome was not built in a day, and every little step forward seems to take so long, but, gradually, I believe we are getting there. The EU, and their fraud squad, OLAF, are on the case. We wait and try to be patient,its what we Brits do best, so they say. Did we INVENT the queque ?
Still Fighting, Frances
Originally from: Farmtalking
Thanks Francis!
In some ways I'm sure we both sympathise with Gary (Burkie)!
In the UK during 2001, so many suffered as a result of FMD and then and since, we felt quite justified n criticising anyone – sometimes including eachother! – who we thought could and should have done things differently or better!
The trouble is that on the whole, criticism tends to be destructive. Only forcing people to entrench their position and justify their actions even more.
During 2001 I found there was very little I could do to stop or change what was happening.
What I could and did do, was try to help people to cope with their individual situations in the way that was best for them. It was always their choice as each situation and individual is different. What one can cope with another finds impossible to deal with. I admit that at times I found their choices frustrating and wished they would have chosen an alternative but that wasn't the point of the exercise!
The one thing that was made clearer to me than ever, was that if we are to 'criticise' we must be 'constructive' and offer a sensible alternative. We can only do that successfully if we fully understand all the reasons why those we criticise choose the actions we dislike so much. If we don't understand the full story we surely have no right to judge or criticise and nor are we any help to those we would seek to assist or ourselves.
Farmtalking was started with the aim that it 'shared ideas, information and advice' in the hope that 'a problem shared is a problem solved'. I think it continues to do that but not always as constructively as it might!
Nevertheless, there are many that are definitely not 'couch potatoes'! They continue to share information both on this board and others, as well as through Warmwell, Christopher Booker's Notebook, Smallholders On-Line, etc. They are public platforms but there are also private ones. So often unknown to us, others are working hard to improve so much and make constructive suggestions in many fields, some of which Francis has mentioned and from which we will all benefit in the future.
Keeping track of everything that's going on at once is impossible but we have to have faith that we will succeed in the end and each contribution made, whether we are aware of it or not, will contribute to the whole.
There is no doubt that when changes are introduced they can seem to add to our expenses and difficulties, but so often we lose sight of the benefits we seek that these changes can bring about. We must give credit where it is due. DEFRA may have made many mistakes and misjudgements and may well continue to do so, but they are certainly not doing it deliberately. We need to remember they have also been given a far wider brief than was the case with MAFF and must be struggling with a very sharp learning curve! So often seeming slow to make the changes we would like and so quick to introduce the ones we dislike!
Following FMD, I remember several suggestions that farmers would benefit from co-operatives of different kinds and in many areas these are now set up and expanding. This morning, news of the Borders Beef co-operative in this area of Scotland, has received promotion on 'Landward' the TV farming program. Illustrating the way in which beef farmers, both breeders and finishers, will be able to cope without subsidies and run a profitable business with traceable livestock that the consumer wants. I hope similar ventures will be not too far behind.
I know 'tagging' stock can be a 'pain' in more ways than one and when introduced was roundly criticised, but without it 'trace ability' cannot be achieved! Of course, it could be improved and with new methods of identification may disappear altogether in the years to come. Who knows?
I wouldn't be surprised if some form of photographic I/D system isn't developed before long, which at least would save the animals from ear-piercing!
For instance, for years fingerprinting has identified human beings and now a photograph of our eyes can be used instead. There are many doubts and criticisms of the suggestion that we might have to carry I/D cards and complaints that our civil liberties will be infringed but...what about the alternatives, the benefits too?
Similar criticisms are applied to horse passports. It's an extra task horse owners will have to do but surely they know it isn't introduced to make they lives more difficult but to improve them!
It's not surprising that some events over the past few years have caused our anger and frustration to take over and all we seem able to do is criticise. I won't deny criticism has it's place and there's no doubt it draws the attention of DEFRA and others, to what has been and still is, very wrong! At the same time, I think we should guard against the tendency to become far too negative in our outlook, depressing both others and ourselves!
Of course this is only a personal opinion. I'm certainly not attempting to lay down the law or Govern this group. I just honestly believe that if we try a little harder to be more 'constructive' and try to accept the changes in our lives as a blessing rather than a curse, both as individuals and as a group, we might feel a whole lot better for it!
Originally from: Burkie
Dear Frances: I don't know if you ever listen to American country music. Maybe you can't get it there where you live.
But if you ever have a chance, listen to Brooks and Dunn's song,
'Red Dirt Road' It pretty-well explains how I feel about things.
Maybe you can get it on an MP3.
http://www.youtelltheworld.com/php/index.php?categoryid=7&articleid=218
Burkie – The Kansas Kid
Originally from: Burkie
Dear Frances: Please allow me the time to explain a couple of things to you.
One, I am apolitical. If I don't like what I see going on, I will let you know what I think. I don't play games with anybody. That includes you and everyone else on this site in the U.K., USA or any other country. I call a spades and clubs black. Hearts and diamonds red. I am not color-blind.
Two, I participated with the FMDnew group, since April, 2001.
When I say "participate" I did my darndest to save a few animals lives and people's livings. And I was scared to death of the consequences should FMD have managed to enter the USA. I did my best to contact our State Veterinary and Animal Health officials, to be met, at that time, with an "oh, we have everything under control attitude"....only to learn later they had no contingency plan in place, at all. I felt compelled to assist both them and your fellow countrymen....just ask Jane. She knows what I've done....long before signing into this Farmtalking group.
By the way, Frances. I was never paid a dime for the hours and hours spent researching, sending information to that group and this group, too. I did this at my own expense, which also includes costs to my own personal relationships with friends, neighbors and others important to my life. They could not comprehend why I would become so deeply involved.
There were several hundred other contributors to the FMDnew group on SG. Each person made their own statements and there was mention of politics on that site, regularly. There were differences of opinion, too. And there were stoolies, too. There were also people that had their own agendas, who used the contributions of others, like myself, to gain knowledge with how to deal with the situation, to their own advantage. I don't hole that against anyone, but would have appreciated a little more honesty, from some of them.
Three: Both of us are involved with this site because it provides us the opportunity to share information with each other. Sometimes, like you apparently feel about my latest comments, you feel I might be out of line. You've expressed your feelings and I respect yours, too.
We could both be out away from this site, and not have anything but ourselves to draw our own conclusions about certain issues. Jane has a great philosophy about problems and communications.
"A problem shared is a problem solved." or something like that.
Well, both of us have a "problem," now. It is our governments and their approach to issues like Animal Health, Bio-security, Disease Management and Disease Control of both Animals and Humans.
Unfortunately, for both of this, it becomes quite political, whether you like it or not. And what I want you all to know, now, is that these disease outbreaks have not just happened. Government officials are not altruistic. There are those in both the UK and the USA that have substantial gains to be made by adopting and endorsing certain policies with regard to the ways and means animal health is managed.
Just today , I've reveived mail from all over the world. The UK is scheduling new meetings to discuss the "new" policies regarding livestock production and the rural environment, for one.
Brazil is changing it's stance regarding the allowance of GM technology into their country.
These are POLITICAL policies, first. Governments of our countries are the one's that set the tones of the consequences both you and I and our friends have to deal with.
So, if you don't like the TRUTH....I guess we all might as well just roll over and die, huh? Personally, I am not quite ready to "go" yet, and I will be quite pleased to meet St. Peter and say, "Pete, I didn't go without a fight."
All the Best – still got my boots and hat on!
Burkie in Kansas
Originally from: Burkie
Dear Frances: I goofed or maybe my computer did giving you a website to find the "Red Dirt Road" song I referenced in my last post.
Try this: http://www.brooks-dunn.com/cgi-bin/powernews.pl?action=article&ref=1066755480
That last one will give you comments from Monsanto's UK Dir. defending their position about their Round-up Ready soybeans seed.
Sorry , I get in a hurry sometimes! Hope you can listen to the song....it's a Burkie song.
Burkie
Originally from: Burkie
Dear Jane: I agree with nearly everything you have said here.
With one exception. There are people in your government with great influence on what the folks at DEFRA do.
This will be made clearer in the future.
The cull didn't need to be. There were people, in the shadows. pulling strings to make it happen. Those people had a lot to gain, monetarily, with the cull to continue. Certain things had to occur in other countries before the cull finished.
It was just a convenience to cancel a livestock a country's livestock population to benefit the commercial interests of these people.
Burkie
Originally from: coleen
Hi Francis
I think you will find that whatever it is your are 'researching' there is stacks more information in the general domain in America. We seem to shy away from putting the truth out there and in black and white. I think we have the attitude if we don't announce it – it ain't happening. The Americans and Australians seem much more open and willing to admit and discuss problems. Or is simply, they are not afraid to make the 'truth' known- where as we Brits (or many Brits I should say) run scared.
I am having problems today working out 'who is speaking the truth' and what is utter propaganda! I am always asking myself 'what is in it for this person then'? Is anyone else having this problem.
Coleen
Originally from: frances fish
Dear Gary, Thank you for your postings. The Vetrecord site is the official one for the RCVS in this country, we found it impossible to get them to print any letters during and after the FMD epidemic in 2001. It is a propaganda machine for "the establishment" if you like. I actually find that more useful info is to be gained from American sites and we got a lot of us stuff off the Australian vet site. Funny 'ole world ain't it ? Frances
Originally from: Burkie
Dear Frances: I would like to obtain an article that was published in "In Practice.
Here's the info I have on this article:
Dane, S., Gresham, A., Potter, R.,Chennels, D., 2001 PMWS and PDNS – Two recently diagnosed diseases of pigs in the U.K. In Practice 23 (1) 14–21
Oddly enough, In your own Chief Vet's Record of 2001, mention is first made of these diseases affecting the U.K swine herd.....and your own Chief Vet says it was recongnized as occurring in 1999, before CSF outbreak in the fall of 2000.
So why did it take so long to show up in "In Practice."
Does this mean these problems went un-published for nearly two years? Why so long? On purpose? or Because they didn't want it known? Or because they needed a notifiable disease like CSF to get compensated for losses. My research into PMWS shows death loss or mortality rates as high as 40% of an infected herd.
I don't know any producer that can stand that kind of death loss, and still remain in business.
Furthermore, How does one dispose of 40% of one's production.
Supposing 600 sows are affected at one location. Those sows give birth to 10 pigs each ='s 6,000 piglets. Two weeks later they start dying....with a 40% death loss. That's 2,400 pigs destroyed for that one herd alone!
But nothing is ever said about this by your own RCVS!
Come on, Frances. Get real. Cumulative death loss of 2.3 litters per year adds up to huge numbers of pigs dead, dying, and killed.
Let's see what that article has to say. How about it? Can you manage to find it?
Burkie in Kansas
P.S. PMWS and PDNS are not "OIE-notifiable" diseases. There is no compensation program for them, either. Only CSF and FMD are compensatable.
Originally from: mark purdey
Hi Colleen,
I totally agree with you about the Brits and their reluctance towards being open with research data , etc. It is all to do with protecting the vested interests, should any product ever prove to be held accountable for causing some health catastrophy that will lead to massive damage payments at the end of the day. I think that, in respect of your discussion, the difference between the Brits and the Americans is that the Americans tend to throw more money into researching the possible / likely environmental health negatives of a new invention , before they license its open release onto the market. Whereas, the developers in this country tend to channel all of the available money into perfecting the invention ( no bad thing ), yet largely skimp investigation of the possible negatives for fear of sinking the whole project. Furthermore, the licensing authorities in this country are abit more incestuous – Key individuals from the relevant industry bodies dominate the ranks of the supposedly impartial government committees that are granting the licenses for their very own own products. At one time, 75% of the veterinary products committee were made up of pharmaceutical company folk . Hardly democracy. Well, the US EPA also has its problems, but not as bad as goes on here.
I have just written a letter to a farming paper which discusses this very same problem. Its in response to the UK government scraping a meeting to be held about the neurological effects in the farmers who were exposed to agricultural organo-phosphate insecticides. A phenomena that was government compelled here in the UK –
Re: DEFRA ditch OP summit.
Dear Sir,
Back in 1984 when my farming business defeated the UK government's compulsory OP warble fly order in the high courts, I felt that there was a possibility of persuading officialdom that neuropsychiatric repercussions would inevitably follow any compulsory OP treatment programmes; thereby getting the authorities to reconsider their policies.
But nobody took any serious notice, and all anti-OPites found themselves subjected to a prolonged campaign of ridicule and dirty tricks from the appropriate departments. They were criminalised and marginalised until they lost all self worth.
Today, we are dealing with a DEFRA who have surrendered every last iota of government independence to the commercial interests of the multinational corporations. They have betrayed the healthy interests of the very people and environment who they are supposed to be serving.
In this respect, it is not surprising to read that DEFRA have ditched the OP summit ( FG 24/10/03). In one sense, their officials are finally being honest in stating that there is nothing new to discuss. On the face of it, they have never had any genuine intention of advancing the debate . We all know that agricultural OPs were proven to be toxic to human health back in the1950s, plus we all know that the government could never afford to cough up the compensation for the raft of illhealth damages that has directly / indirectly resulted from the compulsory overdosing with OP – Neurodegenerative disease in farmworkers, BSE, ME, etc, etc. The government has craftily installed the enemy onto both sides of the OP chessboard, and this has kept the debate in stalemate for many years now.
The answer is for the people of this country to bypass the so called sugar daddy state and get on with policing our toxic problems for ourselves. We need to become responsible as individuals for our own health, and simply refuse to buy the classes of chemical or food that are currently leading us into the abyss of self destruction. That is the only way to stop the heart rot.
The government will never own up to the fact that their compulsory OP licensing had given us a diverse array of neurological diseases such as BSE, or that the fungicides they have licensed for inclusion into our soaps have given us skin cancer , or that concorde's sonic shock waves have blasted the atomic equilibrium of the ozone layer to pieces. They just make silent retreats; and , if anyone starts shouting, they misappropriate the blame onto a natural scapegoat like sheep scrapie, ultra violet rays or the methane from livestock manures.
Sincerely, Mark Purdey. ( www.markpurdey.com)
Originally from: Pat Gardiner
Dear Coleen
This is part of an article some of my friends had a few days ago. It might help.
"I was watching a TV programme last night covering the exploits of a couple of Australian con-artists.
We can all be conned, I certainly have been. The revelation in last night's programme that most of the victims seemed to continue to believe in the innocence of the pair, despite losing their money and the efforts of the police came as no surprise.
Spin merchants and con artists come out of the same stable.
Circumstances make the farming community exceptionally vulnerable.
Farming people are remarkably uniform in their opinions over a range of matters. Blair, Prince Charles, supermarkets, the EU, the superiority of British food, field sports, America, vegetarians – all draw very similar responses from all but a few mavericks. Many of the local equivalents of these views are shared with rural communities elsewhere in the world, so it is not just Britain.
These are not the same responses that you get from the rest of the population, which has much more varied views on the same range of subjects.
I'm not suggesting that the rural community are clones. Choose a different set of subjects and their views would be very diverse – just that on that particular list, there is a remarkable degree of agreement. In the circumstances that arose over animal health, this particular list mattered.
The con artist or spin doctor does not work against the prejudices of his audience, he reinforces them. Because of the remarkable uniformity of view, in this case it was really very easy.
He tells you exactly what you want to hear. You like him for that reason. He or she, then slides in the "con" mixed up in a mass of statements that you will find congenial. If you are not alert, you swallow the con.
In fact, the only people actually likely to be telling the truth, on the matter in hand, are those you find exceptionally irritating.
It took me a lifetime in business, working with some of the best spinners in the world, to learn that.
ooooooooo
I'd read the Farming Weekly every week for years, so it came as no surprise to me that I was going to be unpopular in fighting the State Veterinary Service. These crooks had all the most popular cards – and they were well capable of playing them.
It was pretty obvious that what I had to say would ruffle feathers on the very people whose support was needed to force reform and defend my home and my wife.
Experience taught me that I would never be accepted by the farming community because of the fight back. I was lucky that it did not really matter. Whilst nobody likes to suffer abuse and to upset people, farming is simply not that important to me.
I was just about ready to write a book on business matters, when this all blew up and disturbed my plans.
So, I was in for a long hard slog and knew that perfectly well. The only defence and weapon was absolute truth (within the constraints of errors and omissions.)
It is slowly beginning to dawn on even some of my most vociferous opponents that they haven't caught me out on anything other than my spelling. Given the millions of words, that should have been pretty easy for some of these obviously talented people. However, none of the biggest loud-mouths ever bothered to actually check any of the facts. They were probably scared of what they would find.
They could have done so quite easily. Others did.
I see the most consistent opponent has degenerated to the theory that since the media have not picked it up, I must be lying."
Regards Pat Gardiner
Originally from: Burkie
Big Question? Why did Tony Blair choose to vacation in Brazil in the summer of 2001? Who did he meet with? What issues were discussed while he was vacationing? Was it about meat and food supply? I think it was. It was also about money. It also had to do with certain members in the House of Lords.
Burkie in Kansas
Originally from: coleen
Dear Pat
I am not sure where I fit in, in the grand scheme of things. I have NO liking for people in power, I accept we need them (if only to prevent anarchy taking over), but then I look and see that these people in power, are corrupt and spreading it far and wide with their ever reaching tentacles. As for truth – well that is some 'slang word incorporated from Australia. 'struth' love! I see good honest hard working people, who because they are not classed as 'superior' in this elitist society we have here in the UK ignored and looked down on. Yourself and mark come into this category – fighting for what you both believe in – and yet look at how you are received. I have written several articles on dogs coming into the UK from overseas and the many zoo that could/are entering the UK. Of course because I am a 'nobody' I hardly ever even receive a reply, when I ring up to enquire – you can hear 'it's that scare mongerer' on the phone, attitude in their voice. Yet, I pick up dogs papers and magazines and 'some named person' with a few letters after his or her name' has got what I was basically saying, in print. Is what I am writing any less important? it is most certainly as accurate as the person with the 'name'. Yet I am seen as the 'crank' and they as the 'knowledge'. We do not breed a society in this Country for bettering yourself really do we? We are still out and out snobs.
I am not a born and bred Country person and I do not go with many things that happen in it. Greed, cruelty, naivety to name but a few of the traits of some Country people – but then they all apply to people who live in the Cities also. We fought the fmd fiasco and it has earned us enemies and in some cases of being 'out of step' with REAL country people'. I think outsiders to small rural areas will always be just that – that is why there is so much opposition to 'townies' as we are called moving into the Countryside – because people fear change. The feeling that we could never love the countryside or understand it – the way a true born and bred person does. Which is true in some cases but not all.
I agree that the farming community is vulnerable, but they seem in many cases not to want help. We all hate change me included, but it is a wise man who recognises the signs and moves on before he becomes like the dinosaurs. If you can move forwards you give them less to beat you with.
I do not have any answers Pat, I can only say we each have to live with ourselves and our own conscience. If at the end of the day if telling lies and ruining other peoples lives in the bargain is how you get a 'thrill' then I guess these people must face their reckoning in another time and place. Some people would make a pact with the devil – for fame and fortune. They will still meet their maker when their time is up, just like everyone else.
Maybe we need lessons in how to spot the spin merchants and con artists. Perhaps Oxford and Cambridge Universities should think of running them (as many of the people in power seem to come from these backgrounds).
Have you ever asked yourself – if there were no alternatives to anything and we all believed and never questioned what we were told – would the World be any different?
Hope you get that book finished...
Coleen
Originally from: Farmtalking
Hi Coleen!
I think we are probably starting to take a leaf out of the American's book!
There can be few of us who could afford to take the Government, or anyone else, to Court on a charge of negligence and seeking damages in compensation, either here or in the US.
However, I guess you've noticed that people do sue in the States and sometimes here and for vast sums of money too.
Professionals, ie: doctors, dentists, etc. and companies, have to pay huge sums in insurance premiums to cover themselves for such an eventuality.
Lawyers too can take out insurance to cover the costs of a case if they lose but they have to be very accurate in what they estimate to be the percentage chance they have of 'winning' an individual case to be accepted as a risk by the insurers.
As far as I know there is no 'blanket' cover available to them, each case is accepted or rejected by the insurers on an individual basis and the premiums can be very costly. If lawyers get their estimate wrong they're unlikely to be accepted as a risk ever again!
Therefore, in order to avoid being sued it pays to make sure that the proceedure used or goods manufactured – especially drugs etc – are really 'safe as possible' before being launched on the wider world.
Hence what appears to be a more open attitude to questions in the USA. They are somewhat further on in this field than we are but I'm sure we'll catch up soon!
Even for private individuals it's well worth checking that both public and employer's liability is well covered by insurance. The chance that someone will sue you because they tore their dress on your gatepost or a window cleaner tripped over your planter when polishng your french windows is ever more likely these days!
Originally from: coleen
Hi Mark
We are massively paranoid about compensation here in the UK, to the determent of 'knowledge' and our sanity.
I agree the Americans throw more money into research and from my limited knowledge they are not afraid if a 'theory' proves to be wrong and have no basis. They are also not afraid to ask questions. They see all of this as furthering the cause and research. We on the other hand are afraid of admitting we got it wrong, and not enough people ask questions. Something in us, says we cannot ask questions. What right do we have – we might also be made to look silly! Stiff upper lip and all that tosh... So repeated Governments get away with doing what they do to us. And, in keeping with what you say Mark, if you do not belong to the 'old boys' establishment – then you are always going to be on the outside looking in.
Wherever you look today good old independent advise has almost become a thing of the past. From vets, doctors, supermarkets someone is pulling someone else's strings via financial inducements. Most of the public cannot see it, and go blindly along buying what is shoved under their noses, in the belief that this is 'best' for whoever whatever...
In looking for 'blame factors'. Then the animals are going to be on the loosing side everytime. After all they cannot stand up in the dock and say 'well what what about all those chemicals you let the farmers use for years. I am just a sheep – but my money would be on them being the cause'! The public understand the wording 'blame the farmers, mad cow diesease, etc etc' better then they do OP's and perhaps this is an easier pill to swallow then, countless Governements having sold this Countries health to the person with the 'biggest and fattest wallet' in terms of gratitude and payback for services rendered.
Coleen
Originally from: coleen
Hi Jane,
Yes some friends are going thought the 'mill' at the moment.
Someone (theory is he was about to break into their home), tripped over one of the children's push along toys and cracked his ankle. The fact that he had NO right to be on their premises is not relevant apparently (we are also talking night time here). He is trying to sue them – as this injury has put paid to his work (in more ways then one I imagine).
They have been told they could face negligence charges and are waiting to see if it will go to court.
How absolutely ridiculous. The toy was on their land, of which this person had no right to be on. But, it would seem the law views it differently.
I think this one might have been thrown out – but you never can tell. A man made a purchase from a well known o online auction. He was not happy with his purchase so he left a negative feedback against the sellers name. The seller took offence he said it ruined his life and made him suicidal. If the case went to court it was set to alter the whole way people viewed and spoke on the internet. The auction people who run this 'feedback' were also open to being sued for 'hosting' the website. (libellous ) . They were talking millions of $. All because one person said he was not happy with something he had bought... So it would seem be very careful what you write – people are out there looking and searching the web. Also be careful if you write something for someone else on your web site, or run a web site for some, as you are as quilty as them – if they try to sue. Crazy World.
Coleen
Originally from: Farmtalking
O dear!... that's two sad tales illustrating the importance of care in every way!
One of the reasons I include the following and associated links on my web sites! – http://www.farmtalking.com/disclaimer.html