Not in a bun no, but bulking out Mouse or Oscar's food or worse still in a tube of glue!miss hellfire wrote:If i come back as a fresian, i'm gonna be a bullemic one. The less meat on my bones the less likely i'll end up in a bun.
Foot and mouth!
User removed
Some of the footpaths that cross the Laverstoke Park estate close to where I live have been closed. There are notices referring to a Foot and Mouth Control Zone. I think a real Foot and Mouth Control Zone would be where the disease has actually occurred.
The notices say that the closures are supported by the parish council and the police. It will be interesting to read the minutes of the relevant parish council meeting - if they really have discussed it. The parish council's powers in this matter probably don't extend beyond expressing an opinion. As for the police, they would certainly have the power to enforce closures at a genuine Control Zone, but this isn't one.
It's entirely understandable for a farmer with a large number of animals to be worried about a disease as serious as foot and mouth, and for his employees to be worried too. We have a system where DEFRA, the government department involved, can take decisions to set up control zones where necessary. There are probably many farmers who would like wider restrictions on access to the countryside - what if they all started trying to set up "control zones" and prevent access? There'd be some who wanted to start closing roads as well. Large-scale restrictions have effects on other countryside businesses and activities, as we found six years ago.
If there is a real, official control zone everyone should respect it, and no-one should say "I've a right to go there whenever I want." But until then I don't think a landowner should be claiming to have set one up to prevent access, or to have official support of a kind which I very much doubt can be offered.
The notices say that the closures are supported by the parish council and the police. It will be interesting to read the minutes of the relevant parish council meeting - if they really have discussed it. The parish council's powers in this matter probably don't extend beyond expressing an opinion. As for the police, they would certainly have the power to enforce closures at a genuine Control Zone, but this isn't one.
It's entirely understandable for a farmer with a large number of animals to be worried about a disease as serious as foot and mouth, and for his employees to be worried too. We have a system where DEFRA, the government department involved, can take decisions to set up control zones where necessary. There are probably many farmers who would like wider restrictions on access to the countryside - what if they all started trying to set up "control zones" and prevent access? There'd be some who wanted to start closing roads as well. Large-scale restrictions have effects on other countryside businesses and activities, as we found six years ago.
If there is a real, official control zone everyone should respect it, and no-one should say "I've a right to go there whenever I want." But until then I don't think a landowner should be claiming to have set one up to prevent access, or to have official support of a kind which I very much doubt can be offered.
-
Spencer For Hire
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Tue 24 Aug, 2004 17.47
- Location: From The North
Without wanting to sound facetious, they weren't otherwise going to die of old age.Jake wrote:Thousands of cows were slaughtered due to the 2001 F&M outbreak.Ronnie Rowlands wrote:I mean death wise. People go crazy and yes people do lose money, but in the end, there is no big ecidemic.
Spencer - do you know the real meaning of the word "facetious" I doubt it given your liberal use of the word.Spencer For Hire wrote:Without wanting to sound facetious, they weren't otherwise going to die of old age.Jake wrote:Thousands of cows were slaughtered due to the 2001 F&M outbreak.Ronnie Rowlands wrote:I mean death wise. People go crazy and yes people do lose money, but in the end, there is no big ecidemic.
You forget, no doubt to your dissatisfaction, that not all animals are reared or maintained purely for slaughter.
My sister runs a sanctuary for goats, pigs, sheep and other animals that would have no where else to live out their natural lives. F&M causes havoc, she cannot pick up aminals that are in distress simply because of the DEFRA regulations.
This isn't all about the food on your plate on a sunday afternoon you know!
User removed
Actually the dog did it - hence the copyright "OscarPlymouth"wells wrote:And this is his sisters website created by Stu himself.
http://www.thegoatsanctuary.org
He's not had the claws to update it recently though! Lazy mutt
User removed
-
Spencer For Hire
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Tue 24 Aug, 2004 17.47
- Location: From The North
I think you're taking me slightly too seriously. And yes, admittedly 'glib' would have been a better term to use.StuartPlymouth wrote:Spencer - do you know the real meaning of the word "facetious" I doubt it given your liberal use of the word.Spencer For Hire wrote: Without wanting to sound facetious, they weren't otherwise going to die of old age.
You forget, no doubt to your dissatisfaction, that not all animals are reared or maintained purely for slaughter.
My sister runs a sanctuary for goats, pigs, sheep and other animals that would have no where else to live out their natural lives. F&M causes havoc, she cannot pick up aminals that are in distress simply because of the DEFRA regulations.
This isn't all about the food on your plate on a sunday afternoon you know!
