KILL COWS AND SHEEP TO SAVE THE PLANET

[Cider Boys]

It really amazes me what a shower of idiots govern this country.
Labour have shown their complete ignorance of the countryside on every ocasion but this takes the biscuit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8379759.stm

Barney

[The Mouse]

Grrrrrr

If they want to cut down on hot air, why don´t they just close down the Houses of Parliament!

[Shallot Man]

As we are now governed by Brussels in all but name, do we need Parliament, think of the money that could be saved, more importantly all those expenses that was within the rules.

[alan refail]

Don't fret folk; it's just another journalistic ploy to get your knickers in a twist

[The Mouse]

Don´t spoil our fun, Alan - It´s much more fun believing the worst of them, honest!!!

[Cider Boys]

I can assure you all that this was not a journalistic ploy that Alan tries to dismiss it as, the government were infact deadly serious.

Anyone with any knowledge of rural life know that his shower have not a clue about countrylife.

Barney

[Johnboy]

Hi Barney,
I agree with your comment about this government because when it comes to the countryside they have repeated acted against the interest of the whole agricultural industry. Because of their gross stupidity is why British Farmers never have a level playing ground when it comes to competition with imports. Anybody contemplating Farming in this country needs a degree in form filling before they even touch the soil or look at an animal.
Somehow people who are urban dwellers always refer to the countryside as 'theirs' and anybody who is actually trying to make a living in the countryside is only there to destroy 'their' countryside.
Local Authorities are the bane of farming life.
JB.

[alan refail]

I can assure you all that this was not a journalistic ploy that Alan tries to dismiss it as, the government were infact deadly serious.
Barney

Come, come, Barney; "deadly serious" about what exactly? Actually killing a third of all cattle and sheep, or considering/discussing the implications of a report published in the Lancet, one of a series on the possible health benefits of various forms of reduction of carbon emissions?

I repeat: "knickers" and "twist"

[Johnboy]

Hi Alan,
I do not know the truth in this matter but what I do know is that there is an Organic Association who have decreed that stocking densities of livestock are far too high under conventional methods of rearing and that stocking densities should fall into line with their decree. This would, roughly speaking, be about a 30% decline in Cattle and Sheep populations so rather than Poo Poo Barneys posting look a little nearer to home. This Association, very well known for snide and underhand dealing and always trying to use somebody else's name rather than their own is exceedingly well known to you.
As you will appreciate at this present moment I have very little faith in the BBC reporting. In Barney's posting it could well be an absolute load of old cobblers but generally speaking on Parliamentary Proceedings and Matters the BBC are quite accurate.
JB.

[Cider Boys]

Alan wrote:
Come, come, Barney; "deadly serious" about what exactly? Actually killing a third of all cattle and sheep, or considering/discussing the implications of a report published in the Lancet, one of a series on the possible health benefits of various forms of reduction of carbon emissions?

I repeat: "knickers" and "twist"




Alan

It demonstrates to me at least the fact that this government were deadly serious about , to use your words, considering/discussing the issue.

It is clear to me that this government does not understand anything about rural affairs. Why should they, except for Kate Hoey, none have any background in a rural way of life? However their arrogance allows them to pontificate and dictate on a way of life that they no nothing.

Therefore, it does not surprise me that you jump to their defence.

Barney

[The Mouse]

This kind of story reminds me of China´s ´Sparrow War´, when Mao decided that all the sparrows should be killed because they were eating too much grain. The outcome of their mass slaughter was a terrible and widespread famine which killed over 35 million people, as crops were devastated by insects. The sparrows had been necessary to keep the insect numbers under control!

Every time the Governement or any other group that has no understanding or real knowledge of country and farming practices comes up with some half-baked scheme, it reminds me of what happened in China.
They just don´t seem to be able to see beyond an initial idea to possible future consequences. To use that modern sound bite - they don´t seem to be capable of joined-up thinking!!!

[alan refail]

knickers in a twist.jpg (155.82 KiB) Viewed 4692 times

[Johnboy]

Hi Alan,
Really it might do us all a favour if you were to actually spell out why you think that we have our Knickers in a twist. There must be a reason which totally escapes me.
When the BBC mention Members of Parliament and especially Cabinet Ministers in a bulletin they must be very sure of their ground and suspect that it would all have to have the blessing of the BBC Legal Department prior to broadcasting.
JB.

[alan refail]

Hi Alan,
Really it might do us all a favour if you were to actually spell out why you think that we have our Knickers in a twist. There must be a reason which totally escapes me.
JB.

Morning Johnboy
OK, here goes.

First, a definition: "get one's knickers in a twist - become angry, flustered, excited", to which many people would add "often unnecessarily").

Since the original posting I have searched for other media taking up the BBC report and I can find nothing significant (I may have looked in the wrong places, but Google is usually pretty reliable).

James Landale's report was not couched in terms of BBC impartial news reporting, but of manipulative journalistic hype. If you doubt that, read it again and consider such passages as these:

Let me tell you the story of a classic Whitehall farce, a tale of how the government came within a whisker of advocating bovine genocide.

The scientists came up with a rather courageous idea. Why not kill 30% of Britain's cows and sheep?

So, at the end of the day, there was no story. The government did not take on the farmers.

Another report gathered dust on Whitehall's shelves. No cows died on the altar of climate change.

I am not doubting for a moment that ministers considered/discussed the report prepared for the Lancet - that's what you do with reports you have part-financed/commissioned. By the way, there is a rather more impartial piece of reporting HERE. And sometimes things are discussed without taking into account all the consequences. I the worst cases they are acted upon (I could quote a couple of wars at this point).

[Johnboy]

Hi Alan,
Thank you for your speedy reply. I note what you have said and to a degree I agree with much of what you have said.
All BBC reports are compiled by journalists so it comes as no surprise to me that the article is couched in journalistic terms. How much journalistic license has been used we probably will never know. I suspect that the article in question was compiled after a 'Government Leak', you know the 'toe in the water test' type.
Suffice to what I said about a certain organic organisation still hold true in my estimation because this is what they have been advocating for months and months.
So thick is the Minister that he listens to too many organic theories and this is why agriculture is becoming a minefield of legislation.
It is called whispering in the ministers ear in the hope he will change legislation in their favour. This in turn means that their name is never mentioned and it was all somebody else's fault when it goes wrong.
What a shower!
JB.