The Welsh ASSembly V Skanda Vale

Once again, we have small-minded officials deciding to exercise their powers by slaughtering more animals at Skanda Vale. Animals who were NOT suffering, nor were they a threat to others.
They rely on an outdated test to see if animals are reactors to "TB", a test that is at best open to interpretation, and at worst very unreliable.
As for the comments by Farmers' Union of Wales president Gareth Vaughan, he really ought to shut up, until he has learnt enough about it not to appear as a completely ignorant oaf.

What is also a surprise is that the vets go along with this. The last part of the veterinary oath reads:
"I promise above all that I will pursue the work of my profession with uprightness of conduct, and that my constant endeavour will be to ensure the welfare of animals committed to my care"
How, I ask, can they balance their sworn oath with the policy of killing healthy animals who show no sign of disease and are patently NOT suffering?
Furthermore, what is the point of being a vet if you regard slaughter as the appropriate response to a curable illness in an animal?
Finally, on this topic, and with regard to the recent Foot & Mouth outbreak, I would ask the vets:
What is the point of being a vet if you regard slaughter as an appropriate response to no illness whatsoever in an animal?
The above is relevant in view of the fact that we can vaccinate against F&M?

My reaction to the Shambo ruling

It has been quite interesting to see the reaction to the recent ruling in the "Shambo" case.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/6901038.stm

I particularly like the comments from the FUW spokesman, Evan R Thomas, who says that it will set back disease control by 70 years. In my humble opinion he is talking a load of rubbish and I would love to hear exactly HOW it will set it back?
This is an animal that is, and will remain, in isolation for its natural life, it will NOT enter the food chain, it does not spend its friday nights out on the town with badgers and other animals that can carry TB, so how on earth can it be a threat to the eradication of the disease?
Mr Thomas is also quoted as saying:
"This ludicrous ruling contradicts the principles upon which successful TB eradication programmes throughout the world have been based for generations,"
Well that proves it then, (NOT), if culling is so successful at eradicating TB, WHY is it on the increase in wales.
Another NFU member, Dai Davies, president of NFU Cymru, is quoted as saying:
"This is a decision which saves one animal but at the expense of hundreds if not thousands of other animals" ,
Yet again I would ask HOW?
The animal will not enter the food chain, will not be in contact with animals that enter the food chain, and in fact will be in contact with very few other animals, so how is it going to infect "thousands" of others?
Again I would refer readers to:
http://www.warmwell.com/
For a far more balanced viewpoint than the elected politicians in wales seem to be able to achieve.