More trouble

Originally from: Pat Gardiner
                        
For the second time in four years we have been selected for "random tests" on our sheep (2 ewes and 5 lambs).

The man sending the letter, Christie, was, according to the former SAS officer who arrived here during the Swine Fever epidemic, the man instructing him. I have no reason to disbelieve this.

The last time this happened we went to the Speaker of the House of Commons, for the second time, requesting his protection. Maff-Defra seemed to have backed off on that occasion.

We have since given evidence to Olaf (the serious fraud squad of the European Commission) in respect of illegal activities by the SVS and requested witness protection.

The last sentence of this letter suggests that we can legally refuse to co-operate, we will write back today doing so. I will post a copy of the letter later.

Here is the text of the letter from Maff-Defra.

Quote

State Veterinary Service Defra

Southgate St

BURY ST EDMUNDS, Suffolk, IP33 2BD

Mrs P I Gardiner

Address removed Date: 24 June 2004

Dear Sir

2004 NATIONAL SURVEY FOR BRUCELLOSIS AND CONTAGIOUS AGALACTIA IN SHEEP AND GOATS

I am writing to you to ask for your co-operation in participating in the above survey as your sheep flock has been selected for testing this year. You will shortly receive a telephone call from this office to arrange an appointment for blood samples to be taken from your sheep/goats as part of an annual random survey to check for the presence of contagious agalactia and brucellosis caused by Brucella melitensis. A maximum of 20 animals per flock will be required.

The United Kingdom currently has official disease-free status from Brucella melitensis. Not only is this of benefit to our export trade, but it allows us to enforce more stringent import requirements to protect the national flock. Additionally, we apply similar import requirements in respect of contagious agalactia, from which we are also free.

Holdings for this survey are selected on a random basis from all the flocks and herds registered as required by the Sheep and Goats Identification and Movement (Interim Measures) (England) (No. 2) Order 2002 (as amended) and equivalent legislation covering Scotland and Wales. To ensure the validity of the survey it is essential that sheep or goats on all the holdings selected are tested. Your participation in the survey would therefore be greatly appreciated. If you no longer keep any sheep or goats, or if you are unwilling to participate in the survey for any reason please contact this office immediately.

Yours faithfully

Signed

pp A N Christie

Divisional Veterinary Manager

Unquote

There seem to be three possible reasons for this letter:

1. Gross incompetence at Bury (always possible) but unlikely in our case I would have thought. The whole world knows I have been complaining about the SVS. Nobody but the most arrogant would fail to manage not to select us. They can't be that suicidally incompetent.

2. Harassment in an attempt to force me to give up attempts to have the State Veterinary Service the subject of a full scale criminal investigation.

3. A desperate, and fully authorised, attempt to get onto rare holdings with all three species, near the epicentre of PMWS, CSF and FMD, to get blood tests from sheep.

It has to be the last. Doesn't it? They are worried about disease spreading from pigs to other species. Which disease?

Any advice appreciated.

Regards
Pat Gardiner
www.go-self-sufficient.com
                        

Originally from: Joyce
                        
Pat,
I do believe keepers of small numbers of animals are often targetted as they make for easy work.... and still go down on paper as one holding having been tested.
But you probably also have a valid point as in number 3...!!!
Joyce

Originally from: Pat Gardiner
                        
Thanks Joyce

I've taken soundings all over the country.

It is clear that smallholders do believe that they are being unfairly targeted for these tests and that many have been refusing co-operation.

It is not clear why Maff-Defra should be doing this, but it would seem to me that, if there is a requirement for the tests to be random, a selection process is likely to be breaching international obligation and agreements perhaps to the OIE. Depending on what happens next, I will investigate and complain to the appropriate international authorities. (Recall we do know that the President of the OIE was reported as being very unhappy with the British attitude on making PMWS a notifiable disease, several years ago.)

The phrasing of the letter from Defra seems to suggest that they can't force smallholders – farmers to co-operate, if they could you would have expected the letter to be thick with warnings of criminal prosecution in their normal charming style.

However, the phrasing is subtly different than previous editions – and there have been changes to the law which effectively make it a criminal act to seek the protection of the Courts, so caution seems advisable.

Their methodology seems to be to send a letter, then follow up very quickly on the telephone. These unrecorded calls are thick with menace, appeals to "help British farming, and, if necessary, threats. The deduction I draw is that they don't like to leave a written trace of their activities, which, as usual, are of doubtful legality.

Anyway here is my reply, a second copy posted today, recorded delivery.

Address Removed
 
26 June 2004
Ref: 28/118/0057
 
Defra
State Veterinary Service
Southgate Street
Bury St. Edmunds
Suffolk, IP33 2BD
 
Attn: Mr A N Christie \x{2013} Divisional Veterinary Manager
 
RECORDED DELIVERY
 
Dear Sirs
 
2004 NATIONAL SURVEY FOR BRUCELLOSIS AND CONTAGIOUS AGALACTIA IN SHEEP AND GOATS
 
We refer to your letter dated 24 June 2004 in respect of the above.
 
We would remind you that you have randomly selected us before and a complaint was made then to the Speaker of the House of Commons, as is our right as witnesses to the Agriculture Select Committee.
 
As you will know, we have few sheep, currently two ewes and five lambs.
 
Your last clause suggests that we have the legal right to refuse or that you do not intend to enforce any legal prerogative. On the assumption that this is so, we formally refuse.
 
If you do intend to invoke the law to enforce testing, full co-operation will be given \x{201C}under protest\x{201D} and appropriate legal action, through due legal process or otherwise, taken after the event.
 
Please do not telephone us. For the avoidance of doubt, all communications should be in writing.
 
Would you please note that a further copy of this letter will be sent to you by recorded delivery next week.
 
Yours faithfully
 
 
 

Regards Pat Gardiner
www.go-self-sufficient.com