Quote from Private Eye.

PRIVATE EYE 1194 28/9-11/10 . 07.
DOWN ON THE FARM
On Saturday 15 September citizens of the Surrey village of Pyford were baffled to be stopped by police and told they could not return home as they might be shot.
It seemed a Defra cull of local cattle suspected of foot and mouth disease had been botched when cows panicked at being shot at. After four animals escaped police marksmen were combing the area. Eventually the poor creatures were tracked to the local golf course and gunned down.
Only a week earlier Defra's chief vet Debby Reynolds had claimed “I'm satisfied that foot and mouth has been eradicated from the UK in 2007” . This followed lavish praise showered on Ms Reynolds and Defra's staff by Gordon Brown, by Tory leader David Cameron and much of the media for the efficient way they had responded to the escape of FMD virus from the Pirbright site of the Institute of Animal Health.
Mr Brown had been quick to insinuate that this could be blamed on Merial, the private firm that shares the site to make vaccines. On the day Ms Reynolds uttered her boast, a report by the Health & Safety Executive identified the cause of the escape as Pirbright's drainage system, long in need of repair. Blame for the neglect of the drains lay, not with Merial but with the site's owner Defra.
The problem had been drawn to Defra's attention, but since 2005 it had cut Pirbright's budget by a fifth, not leaving enough cash to repair the drains. Part of the reason for this was the £400m bill Defra has run up for the spectacular shambles it made over handing out EU subsidies to farmers. Brussels withheld this sum from the UK government; Gordon Brown, as Chancellor, told Defra it would have to find the money from its existing budget; and Defra slashed its funding accordingly, including to Pirbright. Thus far from being able to claim credit for the way in which the FMD incident was handled, Mr Brown had his own part in the events which led to Pirbright's failure.
The failure was reinforced when, only a week after Ms Reynolds declared the UK FMD-free the virus reappeared in Egham. The EU too was quick to criticise Pirbright's poor biosecurity, threatening to remove its status as the FMD “world reference centre”, while conveniently overlooking the fact that legal responsibility for ensuring Pirbright's biosecurity lies ultimately with the EU's own Food and Veterinary Office.
The reappearance of FMD with the reimposition of the nationwide ban on animal movements has been an unmitigated disaster for the livestock industry, costing farmers an estimated £10m a day. The sole cause of this massive financial loss has been the incompetence of Mr Brown‘s own government (compounded by its continuing refusal to allow the ring vaccination which could stop any spread of the disease dead in its tracks). Yet when Environment Secretary, Hilary Benn, was asked on the Today programme if the government was prepared to pay compensation, he explained that there would of course be compensation for any farmer whose animals were slaughtered.
What Benn carefully didn't say was that not a penny of compensation would be available for those thousands of other farmers all over the country who continue to lose £70m a week through the knock-on effect of movement restrictions and the like - thanks entirely to the failure of Mr Brown, Nr Benn and their underlings to do their job properly.
Muckspreader

Unbelievable arrogance

In a report in the "Telegraph" newspaper, it is reported that two farmers may be prosecuted for failing to spot signs of Foot & Mouth in their herd.
The incredible arrogance of DEATHRA and trading standards is really unbelievable. Defra are wholly responsible for animal disease control (at their insistance!).
Defra are totally responsible for the current outbreak, as it came from their labs. The real reason for not tracing the actual exact leak/escape point/deliberate infection, would appear to many to be purely so as to avoid any counter action by the people affected.
And then, even though DEFRA caused the problem, they attempt to deflect criticism by blaming the local farmers, how inept can you get?
Also bear in mind that (as the financial times states):
"Animal health experts inspected a farm in the second Surrey foot-and-mouth zone three times before discovering traces of the disease, although livestock had been suffering from symptoms for more than 10 days, it emerged on Wednesday."
As stated on the ProMed (International Society For Infectious Diseases website):
"Beef cattle may manifest minimal clinical symptoms, probably detectable by the professional eye but not by laymen and from distance. - Mod.AS"

(This approach seems to be typical of modern politicians, its called the "someone elses fault" syndrome, and appears whenever they have made an error. Not one recent politician has taken responsibility for their errors.)

And will the media PLEASE get someone other than the ill informed Hugh Pennington to spout the party line? How about getting someone who actually knows about virology, and is up to date with the latest testing techniques, rather than the outdated ones that DEFRA are reported to be using?

Finally, what happened to vaccination? back in August it was reported that if there was one more case then vaccination would begin. The way it looks at the moment, DEFRA probably would not know where to put the needle! I could give them a few suggestions !!!

"The Scottish Farmer" article on vaccination

To quote:
"According to English vet, Stephen Lomax, the government was poised to begin vaccinations if there had been just one more confirmed case.
“If that had happened, the damage to the livestock industry would have been immense,” said Mr Lomax, (technical adviser to the Association of Independent Meat Suppliers).
“With the outbreak apparently controlled, people are consigning all this to the past — but I don’t want to do that till we have highlighted the weakness of vaccination policy.”
"But the policy took no account of the long-term implications for UK farmers."

So what he is actually saying appears to condense to the following,
I do not want vaccination because that damages the profits from the industry.

I find it amazing that a vet, who has sworn the oath regarding animal welfare, appears to be more concerned with profit, than what is best for the animals entrusted to his care.

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.

Shambo the bull !

Why are the welsh authorities and "DEAFRA" still insisting on slaughtering this healthy animal?

I note the BBC have said that the "animal tested positive for bovine TB"
As far as I can tell, that statement is totally false,
What happened is that;
"Shambo has not tested positive for bovine tuberculosis. Shambo has reacted to a screening test for bovine tuberculosis, nothing more."
This does not mean that he is affected by or suffering from bovine TB.
There are also several documented cases of false positives with the testing regime that is used in this country.
So until we catch up with the rest of the world with our testing routines, I shall remain very sceptical of the bovine excrement that frequently spouts from DEFRA.

For further news, see;
http://www.warmwell.com/shambo.html

Gordon Brown

So it would appear that GB is pulling in experienced politicians from other parties to help him run the country.
What puzzles me is that he is being critisised for it?

Surely if you are using people with views that differ from your own, and with different experiences, you may well end up with a more reasonable concensus, that is acceptable to more of the people who pay their wages.

So why the criticism???
Answers on a postcard to 10 downing street.